DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SUBARNAPUR
C.C. No.25 of 2022
Naimesha Daruan, aged about 42 years, W/o. Krishna Daruan, At present R/o. Babanagar, Sonepur, P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District - Subarnapur, Permanent R/o. Kankeda, P.O. Jhartarva, P.S. Tarva, District - Subarnapur
………….. Complainant
Vrs.
1. M/s. Jai Jawan Motors Hero Fincorp Finance & Loans Branch in Subarnapur, Orissa, At NH 56, Opp. To Jai Jawan Petrol Pump, Sonepur-Bolangir Road, Sonepur - 767017.
2. The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, At/P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District - Subarnapur.
………….. Opp. Parties
Advocate for the Complainant …………. None
Advocate for the O.P. No.1 & 2 …………. Sri B. B. Bidyadhar
Present
1. Sri U.N. Purohit, President
2. Sri H. Padhan Member
Date of Filing Dt.26.12.2022
Date of Hearing Dt.09.02.2024
Date of Order Dt.28.02.2024
J U D G E M E N T
By Sri U.N.Purohit, P.
The complainant filed complaint U/s.35 of Consumer Protection Act. The case of complainant in brief is that the complainant is a loanee of Hero Fincorp for an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-, the EMI fixed to 48 installment and the complainant regularly depositing the installments in her Bank A/c. No.773702010003157 of Union Bank of India. The complainant deposited Rs.3600/- on dt.07.12.2022 for payment of installment, but the Bank O.P. No.2 deducted amount Rs.295/- as RTN charges in favour of O.P. No.1 without deducting the installment amount on dt.08.12.2022, 13.12.2022 and 17.12.2022. The complainant depositing regularly the installments inspite of the same the O.P. No.2 deducted Rs.295/- as RTN charges without the knowledge of the complainant. On asking the Bank Manager, O.P. No.2 reply that this is the charge claim by the O.P. No.1 as such auto debited the amount and we are not concern with the same. Then the complainant had been to O.P. No.1 and made quarry about the deduction of the charges instead of installment, they
-: 2 :-
reply that they are not aware about the same it is the agent can explain. The action of the O.Ps. are unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as they are deducting the amount from the account of the complainant without her knowledge. Due to deficiency of service by the O.Ps. the complainant suffer mental agony and harassment, financial loss and loss of reputation in the locality. The complainant claims Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses Rs.5000/- and refund of the RTN charges as per the Bank statement with permissible rate of interest. The complainant file her Bank Pass Book A/c. No.773702010003157 of Union Bank of India.
The O.P. No.1 appear and file his version and stating that the complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless, unsustainable in law and not maintainable and there if no cause of action. The answering O.P. sanctioned the loan of the complainant on dt.29.03.2019 and entered into a lawful contract of loyalty cum personal loan programme with the Hero Fincrop Ltd. due to non payment of loan amount by the complainant the terms and conditions of the loyalty cum personal loan programme. The complainant frivolously implied the Hero Fincrop Ltd. without having any valid ground or without any cause of action. Rather the complainant fails to pay the regular installments on the due date, for that the loan amount mounted in respect of the loan account including interest penal interest and other recoverable dues.
The answering O.P. no way concerned with the deduction of Rs.295/- from account statement of the complainant. Hence there is no question of adopts an unfair trade practice or service of answering O.P. is deficient. There is no question of suffer mental agony and harassment, financial loss and loss of reputation in the locality. The complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant against the O.P. No.1 as the same being completely baseless, incorrect, unwarranted, vexatious and frivolous.
-: 3 :-
The O.P. No.2 appear and file preliminary version stating that the O.P. No.2 has no role to play in respect of loan transaction between the complainant and the O.P. No.1. The payment of EMIs through auto debit option in respect of Union Bank of India vide A/c. No.773702010003157 to the O.P. No.1The O.P. No.2 is no way concern about the deduction of Rs.295/- towards RTN charges in respect of A/c. No.773702010003157 of complainant.
The O.P. No.2 maintaining the accounts of the complainant and act as per direction and mandate given by the complainant and it depends upon availability of balance in particular date in the account of complainant. So far deduction of RTN charges is concern as per policy of the National Automated Clearance House under NPCI National Payment Corporation of India. So all the transaction, deduction has been made as per mandate and proper procedure of NPCI under (NACH) National Automated Clearance House, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
On the basis of rival contention, the following points needs to be answered.
i). Is the complainant as Consumer ?
ii). Is the deduction of amount from the accounts of the complainant as per due procedure of law ?
iii). Is there any deficiency of service by the O.Ps. ?
iv). Is the complainant entitled any relief ?
For proper adjudication of case all the questions taken together.
The complainant being loanee of O.P. No.1 obtained personal loan with payment of 48 installment and given mandate in favour of O.P. No.1 to deduct the installment on a regular installment first week of the month, but the complainant unable to maintain balance in his account before the date of deduction given in mandate form to O.P. No.1. So the complainant is a consumer under C.P. Act. As it appear from the account statement Rs.295/- deducted on 08.12.2022, 13.12.2022, 17.12.2022. On 08.12.2022, 13.12.2022, 16.12.2022 and 27.12.2022 the mandate was bounced due to non maintain of sufficient balance in the account of complainant. The accounts of complainant shows balance Rs.3687/- on 01.11.2022 and the
-: 4 :-
complainant deposited Rs.3521/- on 08.12.2022, the installments deducted on 07.12.2022 Rs.3600/- there was balance Rs.3766/- on the next date 08.12.2022 RTN charges deducted Rs.295/- and the subsequent dates as above RTN charges were deducted due to insufficient balance in the account of the complainant.
As it appears from the guidelines filed by the O.P. “process flow inward debit as follows :-
Step – 1 Our customer having account with our Bank issues a mandate in favour of a beneficiary company/Bank. While doing so, the customer need not get his/her branch endorsement or inform the branch.
However, Branch recommendation is required for mandates issued from CC/OD accounts (Refer Circular Number 00001-2021 dated 05.06.2021)
Step – 2 The Company scans and sends the mandate image alongwith its corresponding soft6 data of mandate components viz., Debit Bank Name, IFSC, Debit account number, amount, frequency, fixed or maximum amount etc. through their Banker (Sponsor Bank) to us through NCPI’s clearing system. NPCI allots Unique Mandate Reference Number (UMRN) against each mandate submitted to NPCI.
Step – 3 On receipt of the mandates, our NACH team verifies correctness of the mandate with its corresponding soft data and tally signature on the mandate with finacle records and then accepts (registers) the mandate or rejects the mandate.
Step – 4 The company receives the status of the mandates and prepares data for collection of dues/EMI on only successfully registered mandates.
Step – 5 On due dates, the company shall present the transaction file (containing UMRN, debit account number, amount etc.) through its sponsor Bank which in turn will be presented through NPCI’s clearing system.
Step – 6 Our Bank will debit the transactions to our customers account for all the successfully registered mandates against transaction files received from NPCI clearing system and submit the status of transactions to NPCI’s clearing system. Transactions that6 were returned for any reasons will be submitted with appropriate return codes. Accordingly, funds for successful records are settled with presenting Bank (sponsor Bank) through clearing system.
The above sequence of steps shows that NACH debits works on “Pull” mechanism. Even though the customer had got mandate registered, authorizing the Bank to debit his/her account in favour of the beneficiary company, the Bank will debit his/her account only on receipt of such instructions from the beneficiary company through NPCI clearing system. The Bank will not debit on its own and remit funds to beneficiary companies. It is the responsibility of the collecting company to collect their EMIs/dues on due dates by submitting debit transaction files through NPCI clearing system.”
-: 5 :-
So in our opinion the NACH debited the amount as the complainant has been given mandate to O.P. No.1 for deduction of installments, accordingly the O.P. No.2 receiving the advise mandate from authorized the NACH for Auto Debit of the EMI as per guideline approved by the RBI. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.ps. and the complainant is not entitled any relief. Hence the complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.
Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the CONFONET for perusal of the parties. File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this judgment.
Dated the 28th day of February 2024
Typed to my dictation
I agree. and corrected by me.
Sri H.Padhan Sri U.N.Purohit
Member President
Dt.28.02.2024 Dt.28.02.2024
