Canara Bank was claiming Rs30,000 as credit card dues from a customer but would have to give up the claim, as it has failed to prove that the person had applied for the credit card in the first place, according to the Economic Times.

 

The legal issue started when Canara Bank, MG Road branch, filed a civil case in 2010 against one RK Dhingra, a resident of New Delhi for recovery of Rs30,454 as credit card dues. It claimed this money was due as he had used the ‘Cancard’ credit card issued to him. Dhingra had allegedly used the card between 12 March 2006 and 21 March 2007.

 

The bank issued Dhingra a legal notice for payment of dues which he did not reply to. Following the notice, it filed a case. The bank claimed that as per the terms and conditions, Dhingra had to make the payment within 15 days from the date of monthly statement of accounts. Since he had failed to do it, he had to pay the amount along with an interest of 2.5% per month.

 

The civil court however dismissed the claim of the bank in 2011. The bank then approached the High Court, the same year. The judgement in the case was passed by the HC on October 29 this year. Before the HC, the bank claimed that the lower court did not appreciate the evidence and documents it had submitted. Since Dhingra had failed to reply to the legal notice, it had to be taken as an admission that he had spent the money through the credit card.

 

Upholding the lower court order and rejecting the bank’s claim, the HC said, “No document is produced to show that the respondent/defendant had made an application for sanction of Cancard nor any document shown handing over of the card to the respondent/defendent by the Bank. Further, the trial court has rightly observed that the Bank has failed to produce Cancard application which is material document. The contention that as the respondent has not replied to the legal notice, as such it is to be taken as admission, is liable to be rejected. Whether one replies to the legal notice or not, it is for the plaintiff to prove its case by cogent evidence, which the petitioner has failed to do so in the case.”

 

The HC dismissed the bank’s petition and said, “No error of jurisdiction or illegality is committed by the trial court and the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the judgement and decree passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is rejected.”