ORDER

1.       This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 03.12.2019 of the State Commission in appeal no. 515 of 2017 arising out of the Order dated 28.07.2010 of the District Commission in complaint no. 637 of 2008.    

2.       We have heard the learned counsel for the bank (the petitioner herein) and the complainant in person (the respondent herein). We have also perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 28.07.2010 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 03.12.2019 of the State Commission and the petition.

3.       This case has a protracted history of dispute and litigation. The bank has not placed the complete chronological facts before us with its petition. However we have attempted to marshal the salient relevant facts, sufficient to enable fair disposal of the matter.

The complainant had opened a savings account with the bank in 2003. The bank provided him a credit card in 2004. It then provided him a pre-approved personal loan of Rs. 92,000/- with interest at the rate of 0.99% per month in 2005, and the amount was credited to his savings account.

The complainant’s contention is that he had never asked or applied for any loan but the said loan of Rs. 92,000/- was credited to his account pursuant to a telephonic call by a functionary of the bank. At that time he had specifically asked the bank whether the loan was linked with his credit card. A functionary of the bank had categorically told him that the loan was not linked to his credit card but was a separate pre-approved personal loan.

The bank’s contention is that this loan was linked to his credit card. However the bank admits that no documentation including any signed agreement in respect of the loan was ever entered into and that the loan was credited to the complainant’s savings account based on telephonic conversation only.

The complainant earlier filed a complaint bearing no. 637 of 2008 with the District Commission in 2008, which was allowed by the District Commission vide its Order dated 28.07.2010 wherein it directed the bank to supply to the complainant within one month documents regarding sanction of the loan amount of Rs. 92,000/- showing therein the agreed rate of interest and also the conditions for pre-closing the loan. It also directed the bank to issue fresh statement of account to the complainant showing the outstanding dues, to be calculated strictly in accordance with the terms of sanctioning the loan. It further directed that the complainant will be given reasonable time to repay the loan and that on getting such statement the complainant will repay the outstanding dues within the time specified therein for repayment and till then the bank will not take any action for repayment of the outstanding dues of the complaint.

The complainant subsequently made a fixed deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/-  with the bank in 2013. But then being in urgent need of his money he asked the bank to pre-close his fixed deposit. The bank credited Rs. 2,52,877/- in his savings account instead of Rs. 5,00,000/- and informed him that Rs.2,47,123/- had been deducted against non-payment of credit card dues which related to the personal loan of Rs. 92,000/- (with interest / penal interest) given in 2004.

The complainant then filed another complaint bearing no. 610 of 2013 with the District Commission in 2013. The District Commission vide its Order dated 06.04.2017 dismissed the complaint.

The complainant preferred appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 03.12.2019 allowed the appeal in part. It directed the bank to refund the entire deducted sum to the complainant within 40 days along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint.

4.       The learned counsel for the bank argues that the loan of Rs. 92,000/- was a ‘cash on call’ loan and it was provided to the complainant against his credit card. An amount of Rs