STANDARD CHARTERED BANK 9 - 10, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI Vs. HIMANSHU SHARMA SON OF SHRI DINESH SHARMA RESIDENT OF 1-E-45, SUBHASH COLONY NEAR KHANDELWAL COLLEGE SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Bank which was the opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - II, Jaipur (in short, 'the District Forum') against the order dated 06.09.2011 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, 'the State Commission'), in appeal no. 937 of 2010. The facts leading to filing of the present revision petition are that the respondent/complainant was issued a credit card bearing no. 5543 -7873 -8068 -7140 in November 2005 by the petitioner Bank. Alleging arbitrary and unilateral imposition of late charges/penalties in his card account, the respondent/complainant filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner Bank for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice before the District Forum. On being noticed, the petitioner resisted the complaint denying the allegation of the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. On appraisal of the evidence adduced by the parties and after hearing them, the District Forum allowed the complaint by directing the petitioner to refund the amount of Rs. 396.29 with 9% interest to the complainant within two months besides payment of an amount of Rs. 50,000/ - towards mental agony and cost of Rs. 2,500/ -.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner challenged the same before the State Commission by filing an appeal which came to be dismissed by the State Commission vide its impugned order.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed by the State Commission in violation of principles of natural justice. He pointed out that on the face of it the State Commission has passed a brief order without giving any reasons what so ever in support of the view taken by it while dismissing the appeal, but only by stating that there is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum. He further submitted that the State Commission did not even advert to the grounds and the pleas raised by the petitioner in its memo of appeal and a perusal of the order would show that there is no discussion at all on the exorbitant amount of compensation which was challenged by the petitioner. He, therefore, argued that such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the matter needs to be considered in the light of the specific grounds raised by the petitioner Bank with reference to the allegations contained in the complaint.