Tamil Nadu

Ariyalur

CC/1/2021

jayanthi - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.The Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Thiruchy 2.The Zonall Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

R.Murugan

15 Mar 2023

ORDER

                            Complaint taken on file: 06.01.2021

    Order delivered on: 15.03.2023

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ARIYALUR

PRESENT: Dr.V.Ramaraj M.L, Ph.D: President

Mr.N.Balu B.A, B.L: Member – I

Mrs.V.Lavanya B.A, B.L: Member – II

Consumer Complaint No. 1/2021

Monday, the fifteenth day of March, 2023

 

Jayanthi W/o. Santha kumar, 14/46, South Vellalar Street, Jayankondam, Udayarpalayam Taluk,  Ariyalur District – 621 802                                                                                                                                                                …               Complainant

          -Vs-

 

1. The Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Tirveni First Floor, 35, Shastri Road, Thillai Nagar, Trichy – 620 018

 

2. The Regional Manager, Sxis Bank Regional Office, First Floor, D.B Road, R.S Puram, Coimbatore – 641 007

 

                                              … Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainant: M/s. R. Murugan

Counsel for the opposite Parties: M/s. A.J. Thamizh Murugan

 

  The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties claiming a refund of Rs.17,775/- towards the amount collected by the opposite parties as an extra E.M.I from thee complainant’s account, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.3,50,000/- towards monetary loss.

 

ORDER

Pronounced by Mr.N.Balu: Member-I

Adopted by Dr.V.Ramaraj: President

 Mrs.V.Lavanya: Member-II

 

 The facts of the complaint in brief:

 

1.           The complainant is a practicing veterinary doctor. She applied for a personal loan to the 1^st opposite party. the 1^st opposite party sanctioned a personal loan of Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainant on 01.07.2015 in her Account No: PPRO13701438430 and the complainant signed in all relevant documents as per the procedure. The complainant was supposed to repay the loan by way of 60 E.M.I’s of Rs17,775/- each. The complainant gave a consent letter authorising the 1^st opposite party to debit the E.M.I directly from her account every month. Hence, the 1^st opposite party was continuously collecting the E.M.I amount from the complainant’s account from 10.07.2015 to 10.04.2020.

 

2.           As per the .M.I chart, the 59^th due is Rs.8,658/- (8,406 + 252) payable by the complainant on 10.05.2020. But the 1^st opposite party has debited Rs.17,064/- from complainant’s account on 10.05.2020 which as the complainant believes includes the June Month’s due of Rs.8,406/- and then as per the statement of account, the amount payable by the complainant is “0” as on 10.05.2020. But the 1^st opposite party has again debited Rs.17,775/- in the month of June, 2020. The loan date is 01.07.2015 and the 1^st E.M.I was debited on 10.07.2015.

 

3.           The complainant came to know about the fact that Rs.17,775/- was debited from her account through a message sent by the 1^st opposite party. The complainant was shocked to see the message because the entire loan was paid on 10.05.2020 itself and the statement of account showed “0” but still the opposite party has debited an extra due from the complainant’s account. When the complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party over phone, introduced herself as veterinary doctor and enquired about this issue, they answered in a humiliating and threatening tone and further insulted the complainant saying that we always collect the dues of loans in this method only and warned the complainant that she could not do anything against them.

 

4.           The humiliating words of the 1^st opposite party caused harm to the complainant. The complainant was severely affected mentally on hearing the filthy words of the 1^st opposite party and suffered mental agony and because of this her profession was severely affected for few days which resulted in a huge monetary loss. The mental agony caused because of the humiliating words of the 1^st opposite party is still remaining in the mind of the complainant. The offensive and unparliamentary words uttered by the 1^st opposite party are still echoing in the mind of the complainant.

 

5.           Hence, the complainant is filing this complaint seeking compensation for the mental agony caused to her because of the humiliating and offensive words of the 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party has been added as a necessary party because the 1^st opposite party is functioning under the control o the 2^nd opposite party. In the case of this commission passing order against the 1^st opposite party, the control and authority are vested with the 2^nd opposite party and hence, the 2^nd opposite party has been added as a necessary party in order to implement the order that is passed by this commission in this complaint.

 

6.           Hence, the complainant is seeking a refund of Rs.17,775/- unlawfully debited from the account of the complainant, to give Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.3,50,000/- towards monetary loss from the opposite parties.

 The facts of Written version of the opposite parties in brief:

 

7.           The 1^st opposite party has filed their written version in the name of written objections and the 2^nd opposite party has adopted the same. The opposite parties admit the averments of the complainant that she is a veterinary doctor, she had obtained a term loan from the 1^st opposite party on 01.07.2015 agreeing to repay the same by 60 E.M.I’s and had given a consent letter to debit the E.M.I’s every month from her salary account.

 

8.           But it is wrong to state that the opposite parties debited Rs.17,064/- instead of Rs.8,658/- (8,658 + 252) and that when the loan account has come to “0”, still the opposite parties debited Rs.17,775/- from complainant’s account. The complainant has falsely stated that she contacted the 1^st opposite party over phone and asked about the wrongful debit of Rs.17,775/- for which the 1^st opposite party answered in a humiliating and threatening tone and insulted the complainant with filthy and unparliamentary words and warned the complainant with dire consequences. All these averments of the complainant have been denied by the opposite parties.

 

9.           The opposite parties further deny the statement of the complainant that the humiliating words of the 1^st opposite party caused harm to the complainant and that the complainant was severely affected mentally on hearing such filthy words from the 1^st opposite party and suffered severe mental agony because of which her profession was also severely affected for few days that resulted in a huge monetary loss. The opposite parties deny that the opposite parties caused mental agony to the complainant and that they scolded her with humiliating words and that such filthy words are still remaining in the mind of the complainant and that they are still echoing in the mind of the complainant.

 

10.            On the other hand, the opposite parties state that as per the loan agreement the complainant had agreed to repay her loan of Rs.7,00,000/- with 18% interest by 60 E.M.I’s. Accordingly the opposites have debited 60 E.M.I’s from complainant’s account, the 1^st E.M.I was debited on 10.07.2015 and the last E.M.I was on 10.06.2020 totally 60 E.M.I’s which is Rs.10,65,000/-. The complainant is not an illiterate person but a learned veterinary doctor who can understand the banking rules and regulations well.

 

11.          The complainant has wrongly understood the fact that 60^th due is in the month of May,2020. But the 60^th due was in June, 2020. When the complainant sent legal notice stating that one extra E.M.I had been debited by the 1st opposite party, the opposite parties sent detailed reply to her notice. A reading of that reply notice would enlighten all the facts clearly. But still she has filed this complaint with an ulterior motive of defaming the opposite party bank and with a motive of extorting money unlawfully from the opposite parties. Hence, the opposite parties pray to dismiss the complaint with cost.

 

12.            The complainant has filed her proof affidavit and has marked Ex. A-1 to Ex. A-8. The 1^st opposite party, Mr. Rajesh has submitted his proof affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties and has marked Ex. B-1.

 

            Point to be considered:

 

     Whether the complaint is maintainable under law and on merits or has to be    dismissed as claimed by the opposite parties?

 

13.             Since the opposite parties have raised some serious issues with regard to the maintainability of the complaint, this commission decides to discuss and decide the issue of maintainability of the complaint first. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the loan amount, the repayment process in 60 E.M.I’S OF Rs.17,775/- each and the automatic monthly debit system of E.M.I from complainant’s account. But the only dispute is with regard to the point as to whether the 1^st opposite party has debited an extra E.M.I of Rs.17,775/- from complainant’s account in June, 2020.

 

14.             The complainant claims that the entire loan was settled on 10.05.2020 with the payment of Rs.17,064/-. She claims that it is a total of Rs.8,406, Rs.252/- and Rs.8,406/-. She says that as per the E.M.I chart provided by the 1^st opposite party, the due for the month of May, 2020 is Rs.8658/- (8,406 + 252). She has failed to explain the amount of Rs.252/- and further she claims that the due for the month of June, 2020 is Rs.8,406/- as per the chart. She has not marked such chart in this complaint.

 

15.            The opposite parties claim that as per the loan agreement the complainant had agreed to repay her loan of Rs.7,00,000/- with 18% interest by 60 E.M.I’s. Accordingly the opposites have debited 60 E.M.I’s from complainant’s account, the 1^st E.M.I was on 10.07.2015 and the last E.M.I was on 10.06.2020 totally 60 E.M.I’s which is Rs.10,65,000/-. This was clearly explained to the complainant by way of statement of account and apart from that a reply notice was also sent by the opposite parties to the complainant clearly explaining all these facts.

 

16.          This commission feels that in the absence of E.M.I chart, the complainant has not proved her point that the 1^st opposite party had given assurance to her by way of E.M.I chart that the last dues for the months of May and June of 2020 were Rs.8,658/- and Rs.8,406/-. The opposite parties have clearly proved that the loan has been repaid in 60 E.M.I’s and the last E.M.I was in June, 2020. Therefore, this commission concludes that there is no ambiguity regarding the E.M.I’s collected from the complainant’s account.

 

17.            The complainant has stated that she contacted the 1^st opposite party over phone and enquired about the wrongful debit for which the 1^st opposite party answered in a humiliating and threatening tone, insulted her with filthy and unparliamentary words and warned with dire consequences. Those humiliating filthy words caused harm to her and she was severely affected mentally on hearing such filthy words and suffered severe mental agony which severely affected her profession for few days that resulted in a huge monetary loss to her. The complainant has not proved any of these averments.

 

18.            Ex. B-1, Repayment Schedule shows that the last E.M.I debited on 10.06.2020 was exclusively towards interest. This commission feels that if at all the complainant had been really hurt by the words uttered by the 1^st opposite party, she should have approached the local police station and lodged a complaint against the 1^st opposite party. But the complainant has not lodged any police complaint. Therefore, this commission concludes that the complaint is baseless and there is no merit in the complaint. Therefore, this commission decides that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

 

As a result, this commission passes the following ORDER:

 

(1). This complaint is dismissed as not proved.

            (2).   No cost.

 

  This Order was dictated by me to the steno, today the fifteenth day of March, 2023, was taken notes in short-hand and then typed in computer and corrected and was pronounced by us in the open commission today.

 

 

             Member -I                                      Member – II                                    President

Witness examined by the complainant: S. Jayanthi (the complainant)

Witness examined by the opposite parties: Rajesh

 

Documents marked by the Complainant:

S.No.	Date	Description of Document	Remarks
A-1	01.07.2015	Loan Agreement	Xerox copy
A-2	26.06.2020	Repayment Shedule issued by the 1st opposite party	Xerox copy
A-3	26.06.2020	Statement of Account issued by 1st opposite party	Xerox copy
A-4	23.06.2020	Legal Notice	Office copy
A-5	-	Acknowledgement cards	Original
A-6	30.06.2020	Reply Notice	Original
A-7	09.07.2020	R.T.I p Petition to the 2nd opposite party	Office copy
A-8	23.07.2020	Reply to R.T.I petition given by the opposite parties	Original

 

Documents marked by the 3^rd Opposite party:

S.No.	Date	Description of Document	Remarks
B-1	13.09.2021	Repayment Schedule	Xerox copy

 

 

 

Member - I                                         Member – II                                             President