STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION U.T., CHANDIGARH [ADDITIONAL BENCH]

Appeal No. : 339 of 2024 Date of Institution : 25.09.2024 Date of Decision : 18.03.2026 M/s SBI Cards & Payments Services Ltd., through its Manager, Registered Address: Unit 401 & 402, 4th Floor, Aggarwal Millennium Tower, E 1, 2, 3, Netaji Subhash Place, Wazirpur, New Delhi – 110 034 ….Appellant/Opposite Party No.4 Versus

1] Anu D/o Shri Gaurav Singh, residing at H.No.704/7, Bapu Dham Colony, Sector 26, Chandigarh …Respondent/Complainant

2] The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Grain Market, Sector

26, Chandigarh

3] Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, 3rd Floor, G Block, Synergy Building, Behind National Stock Exchange, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai 400 051

4] State Bank of India, Regional Officer, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh …Respondents/Opposite Parties No.1, 2 & 3 BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER SH. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER ARGUED BY :-

Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate (on VC) alongwith Ms. Sweta, Advocate for the appellant Sh. Devinder Singh Soundh, Advocate for respondent No.2 to 4 Respondent No.1 ex-parte vide order dated 27.03.2025 PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by opposite party No.4 -

M/s SBI Cards & Payments Services Ltd. (appellant herein) seeking setting aside order dated 12.04.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as ‘District Commission’) vide which, Consumer Complaint bearing No.999 of 2021 filed by the complainant – Anu (respondent No.1 herein) has been partly allowed against all the opposite parties including the appellant – opposite party No.4 by granting following relief:-

“7] Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly partly allowed against OP No.1 to 4. The OPs No.1 to 4 are directed to refund to the complainant the maturity amount of FDR i.e. ₹94,679/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of its maturity (29.08.2021) till the date of actual realization.

This order be complied with by OPs No.1 to 4 within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.”

2] In brief, the case of the complainant before the District Commission was that she is having a Savings Account No.39009157079 with opposite party - Bank. She deposited an amount of ₹92,000/- in FDR with the Bank and she was also issued a credit card by the Bank, though she was not interested for it, on the pretext that there would be no extra charge for the credit card. She used the said credit card only for 1-2 times but was stunned to know that huge amount was being shown outstanding against her credit card. The opposite parties used to send message of outstanding amounts of credit card to her despite the fact that she had not used it. She agitated the matter with the opposite parties and their officials told her that the messages had been sent to her inadvertently and she would have to pay only the amount which was used by her through credit card. It was submitted that the Bank, by adopting illegal method, used the amount of her FDR against illegal outstanding amount of credit card before its maturity and without her consent. She agitated this matter with the opposite parties and also sent a legal notice on 03.09.2021 but they did not pay any heed.

3] Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 failed to file their written version to the complaint within the stipulated time period and therefore, their defence was struck off by the District Commission vide order dated

06.02.2023 & 16.06.2023 respectively.

4] Complainant led evidence in support of her case before the District Commission.

5] The District Commission, after hearing the complainant in person and going through the evidence on record, partly allowed the consumer complaint, as stated above.

6] The order of the District Commission has been assailed by the appellant - opposite party No.4 on the ground that D