Per Justice G.D. Sharma, J. (Oral) 1. The complainant Shri Kuldeep Kumar Handa through the medium of this complaint has claimed refund of Rs. 30,000/- alleged to have been wrongly deducted from his saving Bank Account 2411000021215 maintained with OP No.3 alongwith compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 for causing him physical and mental harassment through hired goons. His case in brief is that he was prevailed upon by some staff members of the OPs to avail credit card loan facility up to the limit of Rs. 30,000/- by alluring that in case the said credit card facility amount availed by him within the limit is repaid within 45 days then no interest thereon shall be charged and his above stated saving bank account would continue to earn usual the interest on the deposited amounts. That without his knowledge and at his back the said credit card facility was credited in a separate Account No.434677100432449. He got the knowledge of the said credited amount in response to his letter dated 15.02.2007 (Annexure `A'), whereby he had sought the cancellation of the above said credit card facility with immediate effect. That said credit card loan facility was unilaterally sanctioned in his favour and credited towards his above stated saving Account. That he never used the cash credit loan facility but from his saving Bank Account No., the recovery of monthly instalment alongwith interest accrued thereon as well as incidental expenses were being recovered. He was not having any knowledge about such a mal-practice but when statement of account dated 04.09.2006 was made available to him, he came to know about all such deductions (Annexure `B'). Thereafter, the complainant received letters dated 28.02.2007 and dated 08.03.2007 from the office of OP No.3. In response to those letters, he vide his letter dated 15.03.2007 wrote to the Assistant Manager Customer Services of the OPs and sought the record of credit card loan facility. ['Annexures C, D & E' annexed with the complaint]. The complainant was not given any information and then he again made a request vide fax message `annexed as annexure F'. The above stated Assistant Manager Customer Services vide his communication dated 13.07.2007 had acknowledged the request of the complainant and assured him that he would look into the matter but nothing was done as is evident from the letters addressed by the complainant vide `annexures G,H and I'. The above stated Assistant Manager Customer Services vide his communication dated 13.07.2007 had acknowledged the request of the complainant and assured him that he would look into the matter but nothing was done as is evident from the letters addressed by the complainant vide `annexures G,H and I'. Finally, the Assistant Manager Customer Services vide his letter dated 17.08.2008 (annexure IA) informed the complainant that OPs were not in receipt of payment for minimum amount produced on his credit amount since January 2007 and that led to a accrual of charges and rendering the credit account invalid. It is further alleged that he had received three threatening phone calls from Delhi, the details whereof are given in Para 4 and 5 of the complaint. The callers had been falsely personating themselves as Police Officials borne on the strength of Delhi Police. They had been threatening him to take into the custody from Jammu and would be taken to Delhi for interrogation. The complainant vide `annexure K' informed OP No.3 about these threats, copies whereof were sent to the Higher Officials of the OPs as well as to Commissioner Delhi Police to take legal notice. Since no action was taken so the complainant was left with no alternative but to file the complaint, praying for the reliefs stated above. 2. OPs despite service of notice to appear and defend the claim shoes to remain absent and did not file written version within stipulated period. On 19.03.2008, application was made by Mr. Banu Pratap Singh advocate to set aside the ex parte proceedings initiated against the OPs. Nobody appeared on their behalf and the Commission suo moto vide order dated 27.11.2008 issued fresh registered notice to the OPs to lead their evidence and in response thereto on 09.01.2009, Mr. Vivek Mahajan advocate appeared for OP No.3 and filed his power of attorney, whereas, Mr. Anil Beloria advocate appeared in proxy vice Mr. Banu Pratap Singh advocate for OP No.2. Thereafter no-body appeared on their behalf on many subsequent dates of hearings and on 04.06.2009 again they were proceeded ex parte order. On 22.12.2009, Mr. Anil Kumar Verma Divisional Manager of OPs from Delhi personally appeared and sought time for the engagement of a lawyer. Time was granted to him. On 18.01.2010, Mr. Banu Pratap Singh advocate appeared on behalf of the OPs and sought opportunity to file an application for being heard. On 22.12.2009, Mr. Anil Kumar Verma Divisional Manager of OPs from Delhi personally appeared and sought time for the engagement of a lawyer. Time was granted to him. On 18.01.2010, Mr. Banu Pratap Singh advocate appeared on behalf of the OPs and sought opportunity to file an application for being heard. The case was posted for 10.02.2010 when complainant was present but the said advocate was absent. Again at today's hearing nobody has appeared on behalf of the OPs. 3. The record reveals that OPs are not serious in contesting the complaint. Number of opportunities were granted to the OPs to contest the complaint. The proceedings under the J&K Consumer Protection Act are of summary nature with an object to provide speedy and inexpensive justice by following the principles of natural justice. In support of the complaint, the complainant has sworn in on an affidavit as well as produced one Mr. Sandeep Chopra as his witness. The complainant has corroborated the allegations made in the complaint and his witness Sanjay Chopra has corroborated the complainant about the receipt of threatening Telephone calls from one Pankaj Sahul who claimed to be Incharge of Northern India of HDFC Bank. He had threatened the complainant to deposit Rs. 20,000/- otherwise he would be arrested for cheating the OP Bank. He also stated that one Mr. Yadav had also threatened him by posing himself as inspector of police in Delhi. He had threatened that he could be arrested from Jammu and taken to Delhi. 4. We have gone through the record and consider the submissions made by the counsel of the complainant. He in support of his arguments has cited the case of Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur & Ors. 2007(2) Supreme 422 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme court has held:- Before we part with this matter, we wish to make it clear that we do not appreciate the procedure adopted by the Bank in removing the vehicle from the possession of the writ petitioner. The practice of hiring recovery agents, who are musclemen, is deprecated and needs to be discouraged. The Bank should resort to procedure recognized by law to take possession of vehicles in cases wherein the borrower may have committed default in payment of the installments instead of taking resort to strong arm tactics." 5. The practice of hiring recovery agents, who are musclemen, is deprecated and needs to be discouraged. The Bank should resort to procedure recognized by law to take possession of vehicles in cases wherein the borrower may have committed default in payment of the installments instead of taking resort to strong arm tactics." 5. The fact of the case in hand discloses that alleged threatening calls were of oral nature and no physical harm had been caused to the complainant. The complainant had reacted and set afoot the criminal law in motion by making the complaint to the Police Commissioner Delhi. The amount of compensation claimed to the tune to Rs. 5,00,000/- is highly exaggerated without realizing the fact that Consumer Fora are meant to give the appropriate reliefs on the facts and circumstances of a particular case and not are not money minting counters for undue enrichment. In the instant case the physical and mental harassment is not of so much magnitude as to grant a compensation of the claimed amount. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant within two months and to pay the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for physical and mental harassment. The complaint is consigned to records.