STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                    (ADDITIONAL BENCH)

1. KM Ruby w/o Shri Dharambeer Singh

2.   Dharambeer Singh s/o Shri Ved Pal Singh, Construction of House             No.15, Village Behlolpur, Backside 39 West City, Kharar, SAS          Nagar-            Mohali. Presently residing at House No.1582, Sector-52,      UT, Chandigarh

                                                                                                              …Appellants

                                         V e r s u s 

Aadhar Housing Finance Limited, having its office at SCO No.23, SSN Towers, 2nd Floor, Ambala-Zirakpur Road, Near Corporation Bank, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar-140603                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ...Respondent

Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the  order dated 17.08.2020 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.649/2018.

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                        Mr.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

Argued by   :     Sh.G.S.Ahluwalia,  Advocate for the appellants.

                           Sh.Devinder Singh, Advocate, proxy for

                            Sh.Mohit Sareen, Advocate for the respondent.

 PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

                     This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.08.2020, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh          (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it find no merit in the complaint and  dismissed the same leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 

   2.     Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the complainants/appellants that  they  had raised a loan of Rs.15,62,107/- from the Opposite Party/respondent  on 27.2.2017. Accordingly,  EMI of Rs.16,652/- was fixed which was being regularly paid by the complainants. However, unfortunately on 19.9.2017, due to sudden fire in the house of the complainants, valuable articles were burnt and the complainants came under financial constraint and could not continue with the installments. On notice issued, it was replied and later on the installments were paid. However, the Opposite Party imposed certain penalties. It is the case of the complainants that on various dates in the year 2017-18 cash totaling to Rs.65,500/- was handed over by them to the employees of the Opposite Party namely S/Sh. Narinder and Avinash Sharma. The complainants came to know that the said amount was not accounted for in their loan account, and as such, they alleged that a fraud was committed upon them  by the Opposite Party and it  indulged in unfair trade practice. Accordingly a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission seeking directions to the Opposite Party to credit the amount of Rs.65,500/- in their loan account besides  compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

3.              Upon Notice, Opposite Party/respondent appeared before the  Ld. Lower Commission and contested the consumer complaint.  In its  written reply, the factual aspect of the case regarding granting of total housing loan of Rs.15,62,107/- was admitted which was to be repaid through monthly installments of Rs.16,652/-.  It was pleaded that the payments made to the OP were duly credited by the respondent bank and no such default was ever brought into the notice of the bank neither any police complaint was made by the complainants. It denied depositing  of any cash  with its employees. Certain preliminary objections were raised in the reply regarding maintainability of the consumer complaint. It was pleaded that  there was no breach of  terms and conditions of the agreement  and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 

 4.                   On appraisal of the pleadings, and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission came to the conclusion that the complainants failed to establish any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and consequently dismissed the complaint, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.    

5.           Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/complainants.

6.                       We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

7.              The main ground, in the appeal, taken by the appellants is that the respondent bank is entirely responsible for the acts and conducts of its officials as there  is inter-se relationship of employer and employee amongst the persons who had collected monthly EMI in cash from the appellants and since the relationship of employer and employee exists, the Ld. Lower Commission failed to appreciate the pleadings of the appellants where it was specifically pleaded that a police complaint was filed against the officials of the respondent who played mischief with the appellants. The other ground taken is that there was whatsapp conversation between the erred officials of the respondent and the appellants which was not considered by the Ld. Lower Commission and the aspect of unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent has also not been taken into consideration.

8.                          The  Ld Lower Commission while dismissing the consumer complaint considered all the aspects which the appellant has now taken in the appeal. Regarding criminal complaint for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, in para- 8of the impugned order, the Ld Lower Commission  observed as under ;

“Per perusal of the pleadings of the parties as well as the evidence led in the form of affidavits, it is the case present consumer complaint was filed by the complainants on receipt of demand notice as the cheque issued by the complainants was dishonoured and consequently the OP intended to file a criminal complaint for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned JMIC concerned. Now, the criminal complaint appears to have been filed. With a view to ward off the liability, the present consumer complaint seems to have been filed. If any fraud was played as ante dated cheque was allegedly issued by the complainants, such plea could be set up during the pendency of the criminal complaint before the learned JMIC concerned at Mohali. This Commission cannot thwart the criminal proceedings launched by the OP against the complainants for dishonor of the cheque which was allegedly issued in the discharge of the legal liability.”

9.                    As regards conversation allegedly with regard to payment of cash, the Ld. Lower Commission rightly observed that CD produced by the appellant is not a substantive piece of evidence, unless the same is corroborated by authentic evidence. Regarding the aspect of fraud, the Ld. Lower Commission observed as under ;

“The complainants had allegated fraud that they were cheated to the tune of Rs.65,500/- by the employees of the OP. What were the particulars of fraud and in whose presence the amounts were given have not been disclosed at all and even the evidence on that point not led except for the mere averments of the complainants and the affidavit filed in support thereof. Here we can refer to Vishal Roadways Vs. Economic Traders, III (1998) CPJ 9 (NC) and Manmohan Dhillon Vs. Cool Drinks, 2009 HP 248, relied upon by the OP in its written reply, wherein it was held the question of rendition/settlement of accounts cannot be decided in summary proceedings under the Act. 12. The complainants have also not explained what necessitated them to make the payment in cash when the EMI was being paid through ECS. The allegations contained are not believable and legally untenable. The complainants have failed to establish any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.”

10.                It is the case of the appellants that the amount in cash was deposited with the agents/employees of the respondent on different dates in the year 2017 and 2018 , however, no receipt qua the total amount of Rs.65,500/- was issued. According to the  respondent, at the end of the month, statement of amount deposited/credited is supplied to the depositor and that the appellants never brought into the notice of the respondent bank any discrepancy on the part of the bank. Undisputedly payment of majority of the EMIs has been made by the appellants either at the branch of the respondent bank or through online mode or through ECS clearing, but it is not explained  why the disputed amounts were paid in cash to the persons named in the complaint.   

11.                 During the pendency of the appeal, appellants  were allowed to place on record certain documents, which according to them were not available  with them earlier, and as such, could not be produced. Alongwith the documents, there are copies of statements of  Narinder Singh and Avinash Kumar recorded by the police and final enquiry report of the Police Station. Sector- 39, Chandigarh.   A perusal of the statement of Mr.Narinder Singh,recorded by the police reveals that he was working with the respondent. Housing loan was availed by the appellants from the respondent and after 2/3 months they stopped  to make payment of  the instalments of loan and their case came on  the edge of NPA. According to Mr.Narinder Singh, appellant No.2 paid him Rs.20,000/-, Rs.17,000/- and Rs.8500/- against three pending instalments. However, he deposited the above  amounts received from  appellants No.2 against three pending instalments of loan totalling to Rs.51,742/- by paying some amount from his own pocket  and receipts to that effect, which were available with him were handed over to the police official. Similarly, according to the statement of Sh.Avinash Kumar, recorded by the concerned police official, appellant No.2 deposited Rs.20,000/- in the account of  Neetu Kumari, mother of Avinash Kumar. When appellant No.2 gave him proof of deposit of the said amount of Rs.20,000/- into the account of his mother, Mr.Avinash Kumar deposited Rs.Rs.9500/- on 31.7.2018 and Rs.10,000/-  on 6.8.2018 into the loan account of appellant No.1.  In the police report, it is mentioned  that a case U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is pending for adjudication  between the parties and there is some dispute going on regarding alleged non-deposit of instalments of housing loan.  In the police report , the concerned SHO of P.S.,Sector-39, Chandigarh has concluded that no more police action is warranted and complaint be filed.  Even otherwise, Mr.Narinder Singh and Avinash Kumar  had not been  impleaded as parties in the consumer complaint. 

12.              After going through the contents of  appeal and the impugned order passed, we are of the view  that   the Ld. Lower Commission rightly observed that the appellants have failed to establish any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent.  The appellants could not  show anything contrary which may persuade us to interfere in the order, under challenge.

 13.                     In view of the above discussion, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. Lower Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld..

14..                      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

15.                       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.