Date of filing:- 05/05/2017.
Date of Order:-06/04/2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 22 of 2017.
Ashish Kumar Agrawal S/o- Mangaturam Agrawal, aged about 35(thirty five) years, Occupation – Bussiness, R/o. Bargarh Bhatli Road, Ward No-1(one), Po/Ps/Dist- Bargarh ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-:V e r s u s:-
H.D.F.C Bank, Bargarh represented through it’s Branch Manager, P.o/P.s/Dist-Bargarh.
Federal Bank, Bargarh represented through it’s Branch Manager, P.o./P.s/Dist-Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri S.C.Sarangi, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one):- Sri A.K.Sahoo, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two):- Sri A.K.Dash, Advocate.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.06/04/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief Facts of the case ;-
The case of the Complainant in brief is that he has purchased a Scooter bearing Regd No. OD-17-H-5205 costing of an amount of Rs. 61,500/- (Rupees sixty one thousand five hundred) only being financed by the Opposite Party No.1(one) on payment of Rs.24,600/-(Rupees twenty four thousand six hundred)only as Down Payment against the said Loan with a condition to repay the rest amount in some installments, for which the Complainant opened a savings Bank Account in the Bank of the Opposite Party No.2(two) vide Account No.22000100044498, to facilitate to transfer the deduction of the installment amount from the Opposite Party No.2(two) and would be credited in the Bank of the Opposite Party No.1(one).
Further case of the Complainant is that when he paid an amount of Rs. 2,456/-(Rupees two thousand four hundred fifty six)only through Cheque it was informed to him by the said Opposite Party No.1(one) that it was bounced due to want of sufficient balance in his account for which he made cash a payment against the said installments but to his surprise again the said amount Rs.3,090/-(Rupees three thousand ninety)only with some penalty amount has been deducted from his account which as per him is a deviation from the normal policy of the banking system, and on being asked for the same the banking authority could not give any satisfactory answer for which claims to have suffered a lot both mentally, physically and financially to the tune of Rs.8,000/-(Rupees eight thousand)only including medicine expenses besides the deducted amount of Rs.2,456/-(Rupees two thousand four hundred fifty six)only and an amount of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand)only as litigation expenses. And in support of his such claim has filed the following documents.
The R.C.Book of the scooter.
Savings Banks pass book of the federal Bank (Opposite Party No.2(two))vide account No.22000100044498.
The Bank statement of H.D.F.C. Bank, Bargarh showing the receipt of Rs.2,456/-(Rupees two thousand four hundred fifty six)only by cash with penalty and the statements of the H.D.F.C. Bank Bargarh showing the entry of the installment of the amount.
Having gone through the complaint, the documents and the arguments of the counsel of the Complainant it seemed to be a genuine case hence admitted and notice was served upon the Opposite Parties, and on being noticed the Opposite Parties appeared through their advocate and filed their respective version separately.
So far the version of the Opposite Party No.1(one) is concerned it is an evasive one to the allegation of the Complainant as it has been admitted by the Complainant that whenever any discrepancies including the bouncing of cheque in making payment arises then such payment would attract cheques bounce charges late payments and other charges. And in such complicacies both the parties are bound by the agreement while the disbursement of loan was executed the same would be referred to the Arbitrator appointed by the bank.
In furtherance to it’s case the Opposite Party No.1(one) has also contended that immediately after getting information of the physical payment of the installment by cash they have tried to contact the Complainant about the same and has issued a draft/cheque bearing No.638104 amounting to Rs.2,457/-(Rupees two thousand four hundred fifty seven)only in favor of him and has sent it to him by registered speed post vide POD No. EM668717665 in but that was returned back being unserved so it has claimed not have deficient in giving due service and further more has contended that such a case as is being a case of cheating cannot be tried in the Forum and denied to have any liability and prays before the Forum to dismiss the case against it.
In response to the Notice of the Forum the Opposite Party No.2(two) has appeared and has filed it’s independent version denying to have been deficient in it’s service towards the Complainant as the alleged episode of the case of the Complainant is not within it’s knowledge and all other allegation of the Complainant as is baseless and not within the purview of the Forum is not maintainable hence has pleaded to dismiss the same.
Perused the Complaint, it’s supporting documents, the version of both the Opposite Parties and found that the case rests on the following points for adjudication.
Whether the deficiencies of service has been committed by the Opposite Parties.
Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief.
While adjudicating the points as to whether the Opposite Parties have committed deficiencies in giving service to the Complainant, in this context delving deep in to the materials available in the record it came to our notice that the Complainant has admittedly obtained a loan from the Opposite Party No.2(two) for purchasing a scooter worth of Rs.61,500/-(Rupees sixty one thousand five hundred) only against payment of Rs.24,600/-(Rupees twenty four thousand six hundred)only as down payment having being bound by an agreement with the Opposite Party No.1(one), with a condition to repay the same by way of installments @ Rs.2,456/-(Rupees two thousand four hundred fifty six)only per month and accordingly has opened an account in the Bank of Opposite Party No.2(two) and was paying the same by issuing cheque of the said Opposite Party No.2(two) in favor of the Opposite Party No.1(one), but in the process, the Complainant has issued with a cheque of the said amount of Rs. 2,456/-(Rupees two thousand four hundred fifty six)only in favor of the Opposite Party No.1(one) but the same was bounced due to insufficiencies of funds in his said account, so on being informed he paid the same amount in cash with some service charges and penalty, but subsequently thereafter the Opposite Party No.1(one) has deducted an additional amount of Rs.2,456/-(Rupees two thousand four hundred fifty six)only, so in his view such act of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiencies of service .
But to our observation from the version of the Opposite Party No.1(one) in paragraphs No-9 (c) it has been clearly contended by him admitting the case of the Complainant so far the deduction of the same amount of installment after being paid in cash by him but at the same time has clarified therein that immediately after getting information of the same has sent a draft of the same amount in the name of the Complainant vide No.638104 through registered speed post on Dt.27.01.2017 vide POD NO-EM668717665IN but the same could not be served upon him due to some problem, besides all other averments made by it in reply to the complaint.
And so far as the case of the Complainant against the Opposite Party No.2(two), it reveals from the averments made by it in reply to the same it was beyond it’s knowledge about the total episode besides the case of the bounce of the cheque of the Complainant.
In furtherance to our observation having gone thoroughly through the materials available in the record, to our observation the total episode of the case has arose due the callousness of the Complainant as it is his duty to see his account while issuing a cheque in repayments of his loan amount as to whether there is sufficient amount of the cheque amount is there in his account or not, secondly it is his duty in giving information immediately after paying the same in cash to the party in question not to deduct further, And so far the allegation against the Opposite Party No.1(one) is concerned there is no cogent reason to disbelieve it’s contention of sending the same amount to the Complainant through speed post as has mentioned the date and the number of the Draft/cheque as has not been ascertained by the Complainant as the same is a fake one from the post office, further more we don’t find any allegation of deficiencies of service or unfair trade practice against any of the Opposite Party, since the allegation of the Complainant even if taken to have any merit, would constitute an offence under the Indian Penal Code, which does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 in the absence of any allegation within the purview of the above mentioned allegation. Hence in our consensus view the Complainant has squarely failed to prove any case against the Opposite Parties in any manner.
Accordingly the points No.2(two) is answered against the Complainant in view of our details discussion and observation envisaged in our foregoing paragraph, hence Order follows.
O R D E R
Hence in view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the case of the Complainant is devoid of any merit hence the same is dismissed, and the same is pronounced in the open Forum to-day i.e. on Dt.06.04.2018 and the same is disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t I agree
(Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (w)
