ABN Amro Bank V/S Dharma Rao Mutchi - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/2576

Dharma Rao Mutchi - Complainant(s)

Versus

ABN Amro Bank - Opp.Party(s)

MP

27 Feb 2009

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/2576

Dharma Rao Mutchi						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
ABN Amro Bank						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 27.11.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 27th FEBRUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2576/2008 COMPLAINANT Sri. Dharma Rao Mutchi, S/o. Sanyasi Rao, Aged about 36 years, Residing at No. 65, 1st Floor, 20th Cross, Gayathri Layout, 2nd Stage, Basavanapura Main Road, K.R. Puram, Bangalore 560 036. Advocate (M. Prashanth) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Manager, A.B.N. Amro Bank, Residency Road, Bangalore 560 025. 2. The Manager, A.B.N. Amro Bank, B/148, Sector 10, Noida 201301 Uttar Pradesh. Advocate (Meena Venugopal) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant availed a personal loan of Rs.50,000/- from OP through his credit card. After completing all the formalities OP sanctioned Rs.48,883/-. Complainant is prompt in making payment of the said amount. He is not a defaulter, but still OP at its own whim, fancy and convenience started collecting the hidden charges, late fee charges, penal interest, etc. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to rectify the said mistake, went in futile. Due to some personal inconvenience complainant forget to pay one EMI for the month of October 2007. OP took the undue advantage of the same and imposed penal interest. On repeated requests and demands made by the complainant by sending a notice, OP has come up with a false defence that they have intimated the mode of charging of interest and other charges through a letter which they sent it by courier. At no point of time complainant received the said letter and his signature was forged. With all that OP is making a claim of overdue amount of Rs.26,734/-. Due to the hostile attitude and harassment caused by the OP, complainant could not prepare well for his master degree. He suffered both monetary loss and mental agony. Thus felt he deficiency in service. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant is bound to abide the terms and conditions of the said personal loan which was sanctioned to him. He is aware of mode of payment of EMI, rate of interest, processing fees, insurance, penal charges, interest. His payment of the EMI was erratic and inconsistent. When complainant became the defaulter, he was intimated to pay the outstanding dues and the statement of accounts were regularly sent to him. But there was no response. OP has also intimated the complainant by addressing a letter, which was sent through courier. Complainant received the said letter, but failed to clear of the dues. As per the statement maintained by the OP complainant is still in due of Rs.26,734/-. When complainant himself is a defaulter, he cannot allege the deficiency in service against the OP. The entire complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed a personal loan of Rs.50,000/- from OP Bank on the basis of his credit card. After attending to all formalities OP released Rs.48,883/-, he was required to repay the said amount through EMI. For the payment of the said dues an account No. 7777 7777 7192 1722 was given. According to the complainant he used to drop the EMI cheque for the said amount, but OP has not maintained proper accounts and failed to issue him the statement of accounts as contemplated. Due to some personal inconvenience he failed to make payment for the EMI for the month of October 2007, thereafter he paid the EMI of October and November simultaneously at a stretch. With all that OP imposed the late fee charges and penal interest. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service. 7. On going through the evidence of the complainant it is made out that he is not prompt in making payment of the EMI. He is a defaulter. When he became the defaulter OP has invoked the terms and conditions of the repayment of the said loan which specifically states about the rate of interest, penal interest, late fee charges, etc. If OP has acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the said loan, that act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. OP has produced the statement of accounts. It is stated by the OP that complainant is erratic in making payment of the EMI and the payment if any made is highly inconsistent with the terms and conditions. Under such circumstances OP imposed certain bank charges. Even that act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. 8. It is contended by the OP that when the complainant became the defaulter, they intimated him to pay the outstanding dues by sending the statement through courier. According to OP complainant received the said courier, but complainant disputes his signature on the said courier stating that it is forged. If the complainant feels that his signature is forged, nothing prevented him to file a complaint either against the courier company or against the OP if at all OP has joined hands with courier service. But no such steps are taken. So under such circumstances the contention of the complainant that he has not received the statement of accounts or the courier and the signature is forged rather cannot be believed. 9. According to OP complainant is still in due of Rs.26,734/- towards the said loan. This fact is not denied or disputed by the complainant. When that is so, when the complainant himself is in due of certain amount and that he has become the defaulter in making payment of the EMI, in our view he cannot allege the deficiency in service. The say of the complainant that due to the hostile attitude of the OP he has suffered both mental agony and financial loss, rather cannot be accepted. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 27th day of February 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 27.11.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 27th FEBRUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2576/2008 COMPLAINANT Sri. Dharma Rao Mutchi, S/o. Sanyasi Rao, Aged about 36 years, Residing at No. 65, 1st Floor, 20th Cross, Gayathri Layout, 2nd Stage, Basavanapura Main Road, K.R. Puram, Bangalore 560 036. Advocate (M. Prashanth) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Manager, A.B.N. Amro Bank, Residency Road, Bangalore 560 025. 2. The Manager, A.B.N. Amro Bank, B/148, Sector 10, Noida 201301 Uttar Pradesh. Advocate (Meena Venugopal) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant availed a personal loan of Rs.50,000/- from OP through his credit card. After completing all the formalities OP sanctioned Rs.48,883/-. Complainant is prompt in making payment of the said amount. He is not a defaulter, but still OP at its own whim, fancy and convenience started collecting the hidden charges, late fee charges, penal interest, etc. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to rectify the said mistake, went in futile. Due to some personal inconvenience complainant forget to pay one EMI for the month of October 2007. OP took the undue advantage of the same and imposed penal interest. On repeated requests and demands made by the complainant by sending a notice, OP has come up with a false defence that they have intimated the mode of charging of interest and other charges through a letter which they sent it by courier. At no point of time complainant received the said letter and his signature was forged. With all that OP is making a claim of overdue amount of Rs.26,734/-. Due to the hostile attitude and harassment caused by the OP, complainant could not prepare well for his master degree. He suffered both monetary loss and mental agony. Thus felt he deficiency in service. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant is bound to abide the terms and conditions of the said personal loan which was sanctioned to him. He is aware of mode of payment of EMI, rate of interest, processing fees, insurance, penal charges, interest. His payment of the EMI was erratic and inconsistent. When complainant became the defaulter, he was intimated to pay the outstanding dues and the statement of accounts were regularly sent to him. But there was no response. OP has also intimated the complainant by addressing a letter, which was sent through courier. Complainant received the said letter, but failed to clear of the dues. As per the statement maintained by the OP complainant is still in due of Rs.26,734/-. When complainant himself is a defaulter, he cannot allege the deficiency in service against the OP. The entire complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed a personal loan of Rs.50,000/- from OP Bank on the basis of his credit card. After attending to all formalities OP released Rs.48,883/-, he was required to repay the said amount through EMI. For the payment of the said dues an account No. 7777 7777 7192 1722 was given. According to the complainant he used to drop the EMI cheque for the said amount, but OP has not maintained proper accounts and failed to issue him the statement of accounts as contemplated. Due to some personal inconvenience he failed to make payment for the EMI for the month of October 2007, thereafter he paid the EMI of October and November simultaneously at a stretch. With all that OP imposed the late fee charges and penal interest. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service. 7. On going through the evidence of the complainant it is made out that he is not prompt in making payment of the EMI. He is a defaulter. When he became the defaulter OP has invoked the terms and conditions of the repayment of the said loan which specifically states about the rate of interest, penal interest, late fee charges, etc. If OP has acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the said loan, that act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. OP has produced the statement of accounts. It is stated by the OP that complainant is erratic in making payment of the EMI and the payment if any made is highly inconsistent with the terms and conditions. Under such circumstances OP imposed certain bank charges. Even that act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. 8. It is contended by the OP that when the complainant became the defaulter, they intimated him to pay the outstanding dues by sending the statement through courier. According to OP complainant received the said courier, but complainant disputes his signature on the said courier stating that it is forged. If the complainant feels that his signature is forged, nothing prevented him to file a complaint either against the courier company or against the OP if at all OP has joined hands with courier service. But no such steps are taken. So under such circumstances the contention of the complainant that he has not received the statement of accounts or the courier and the signature is forged rather cannot be believed. 9. According to OP complainant is still in due of Rs.26,734/- towards the said loan. This fact is not denied or disputed by the complainant. When that is so, when the complainant himself is in due of certain amount and that he has become the defaulter in making payment of the EMI, in our view he cannot allege the deficiency in service. The say of the complainant that due to the hostile attitude of the OP he has suffered both mental agony and financial loss, rather cannot be accepted. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 27th day of February 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.