J&K Bank Ltd. & Anr vs State Consumer Disputes ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 980 j&K/2

                                                                       S. No. 25
                                                                       Suppl. List.
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                                 AT SRINAGAR

                                       OWP No. 1004/2009

             J&K Bank Ltd. & Anr.                                          ...Petitioner(s)

             Through: Mr. Z. A. Shah, Sr. Adv.

                                                 Vs.

             State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum & Ors.               ...Respondent(s)

             Through: None

             Coram:
                        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                        HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

                                            ORDER

27.08.2021

1. Heard Mr Z. A. Shah, learned senior counsel for the petitioners.

2. The petitioners J&K Bank Ltd. has preferred this writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 11 th July 2007 passed by the Divisional Consumer Protection Forum, Srinagar and the appellate order thereof dated 15th September 2009 passed by the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Srinagar.

3. The respondent No. 3 had made a complaint regarding harassment caused to him on account of annual bills being raised for the use of Credit Card which was never given to him by the bank.

4. The defence of the bank is that as per the practice, the Credit Card was issued in the name of respondent No. 3 and was sent to the Branch concerned. At the same time, a pin mailer was generated and was dispatched to respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 was supposed to collect the Credit Card from the Branch and is liable for the payment of annual charges irrespective of the fact as to whether he used the Credit Card or not.

MOHAMMAD ALTAF NIMA
2021.08.31 10:48
             OWP
I attest to the       No.1004/2009

integrity of this document

5. The courts below have concurrently held on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties that the respondent No. 3 had not even received the pin mailer which is allegedly to have been dispatched on 11 th August 2005. The bank authorities have not produced any dispatch register with regard to the pin mailer as it was said to be with the outsourcing agency. Therefore, the fact of dispatch of the pin mailer and that it was actually served upon respondent No. 3 is not established.

6. There may not be any dispute that the Credit Card issued in favour of the respondent No. 3 was sent to the Branch and it was to be collected by respondent No. 3, however, the fact remains that the Branch never informed the respondent No. 3 that the Credit Card has been received by it and that he can come and collect the same. Admittedly, there is no communication in this regard in writing, rather the evidence has come that the respondent No. 3 was telephonically informed to collect the Credit Card. However, the evidence of the Branch Manager discloses that he does not remember the date on which the telephone call was made to the respondent No. 3. The Branch does not maintain any record regarding any such telephonic calls. In the absence of any material to prove that respondent No. 3 was called upon even orally to collect the Credit Card and the fact that he denies receiving any intimation in this regard establishes that he was actually not informed of the receipt of the Credit Card by the Branch and to collect it.

7. In this view of the matter, respondent No. 3 neither received the Credit Card nor the pin mailer.

8. Lastly, it is admitted that respondent No. 3 closed the bank account on 13th October 2005 and all the bills raised in respect of the Credit Card were of the subsequent date except for one which was dated 20th September 2005. Once the account has been closed, the Credit Card gets invalidated and irrespective of its use or no use, the bank cannot realize annual charges for the same.

9. Moreover, the writ petition involves a petty amount of Rs. 20,000/- and it is not feasible to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in such a matter more so when it is behest of a bank.

MOHAMMAD ALTAF NIMA
2021.08.31 10:48
             OWP
I attest to the       No.1004/2009

integrity of this document

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances especially the findings as returned by the authorities below, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where any indulgence could be shown to the bank. Accordingly, we refuse to exercise of extraordinarily discretionary jurisdiction and the petition is dismissed.

                                (SANJAY DHAR)                 (PANKAJ MITHAL)
                                       JUDGE                    CHIEF JUSTICE
        SRINAGAR
        27.08.2021
        Altaf

                             Whether the order is speaking?       Yes/No

                             Whether the order is reportable?     Yes/No




MOHAMMAD ALTAF NIMA
2021.08.31 10:48
             OWP
I attest to the       No.1004/2009

integrity of this document