2002 PLP 1745 (CLD)

This appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 6‑7‑2001 passed by the learned Banking Court‑IV, Lahore. The appellants were holders of credit cards issued by the respondent‑Bank. The first appellant was the primary card‑holder while the second appellant, who was husband of the first appellant, was the secondary card‑holder.

2. The appellants availed the credit card facility, but failed to make payment thereunder. As a consequence, the respondent‑Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,14,129.89. The appellants filed an application seeking leave to appear and defend. The said application, however, was dismissed and as a result the suit of the respondent Bank was decreed as prayed far.

3. Before us, learned counsel for the appellants has firstly argued that a sum of Rs.1,02,354 has been claimed by the respondent‑Bank by way of liquidated damages. According to learned counsel for the appellants there is no basis whatsoever on the record nor has any justification been given in the plaint to burden the appellants with liability for payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,02,354 as liquidated damages. Learned counsel for the Bank was asked to explain the basis for demanding the aforesaid amount. He was unable to justify the claim for liquidated damages. In this view of the matter, we find that the aforesaid sum of Rs.1,02,354 was wrongly awarded to the respondent‑Bank by means of the impugned decree.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants next argued that the appellants had made payments through cheques, which had not been accounted for by the respondent‑Bank. We have gone through the statement of accounts with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellants. The statement of accounts shows various credits on the basis of payments made by the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants was unable to point to any instance, where payment had been made by the appellant, but had not been reflected in the statement of accounts. In these circumstances, it is not possible for us to accept the assertion of the appellants that the respondent‑Bank has failed to give credit to the appellants for the amounts paid by them.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant next argued that the respondent‑Bank had charged mark‑up on mark‑up which was not permissible. Again we have gone through the statement of account and find that the assertion made by learned counsel for the appellants is not borne out from the same. The respondent‑Bank has charged various amounts as service fee. Such amounts have been incorporated in the statement of accounts, but no further service fee or mark‑up has been charged on the amount appearing in the statement of account as service fee. Therefore, we are unable to accept the plea advanced on behalf of the appellants that the respondent‑Bank has charged mark‑up on mark‑up.

6. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow this appeal in part, modify the impugned decree and reduce the amount decreed by the learned Banking Court by a sum of Rs.1,02,

354. S.A.K./B‑104/L Appeal allowed.