STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. | | 99 of 2019 |
Date of Institution | | 20.05.2018 |
Date of Decision | | 30.05.2019 |
Toyota Financial Services India Limited, C/o M/s Pioneer Toyota, Plot No.177 H-I, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh through its Authorized representative- (Mr.Parth Sachdeva) and having its registered office at ;
Toyota Financial Services India Limited, 12th Floor, RG Tower, Wazirpur District Centre, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034.
……Appellant
V e r s u s
- Aftab Singh Khara, son of Sh.Zorawar Singh Khara, resident of House No.50, Sector 2, Panchkula , (Haryana) 134109
- HDFC Bank Limited, SCO No.11, Sector-16, Panchkula, Haryana.
…….Respondents
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 25.03.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No. 666/2018.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
MR.RAJESH K.ARYA,MEMBER
Argued by: Mr.S.K.Sen, Advocate for the appellant.
.
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 against order dated 25.3.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), allowing a complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant.
2.. Before the Forum, it was case of the complainant that when he purchased a car, he availed loan of Rs.7.00 Lakhs from the appellant which was repayable in 36 equated monthly installments of Rs.21930/- each starting from 2.1.2017 till 2.9.2020. Loan agreement was entered into between the parties. The complainant agreed to transfer of installment amount through the process of ECS(Electronic clearance Scheme) from his bank account maintained with OP NO.2/respondent No.2. The deduction had regularly been made. On 8.11.2018 the complainant received an email cautioning him that due to some technical snag, installment amount which was due for payment on 2.11.2017, was not received by the appellant. It is case of the complainant that on the said date sufficient funds were available in his account. The complainant asked the appellant as to why he was not intimated immediately. It was further stated that the amount was to be transferred through electronic clearance and as per admitted case of the appellant due to technical snag on its part, due amount could not be transferred but without any fault of the complainant, delay charges of Rs.5350/- were deducted from his account..
3. Upon notice, reply was filed by OP No.1/appellant.
OP No. 2 failed to put in appearance despite service and suffered ex parte proceedings.
The facts were not put in dispute, rather it was admitted that due amount could not be transferred due to some technical reasons. On detecting the default, a letter was written to the complainant. The complainant replied that the payment had been made when mistake in account statement was corrected. It was denied that there was any deficiency in rendering service. A prayer was made to dismiss the complaint.
OP No.3/respondent No.2 admitted that the complainant is an account holder of the bank. It is specifically stated that there was no fault on the part of the account holder/complainant. It was on account of lapse on the part of the appellant/OP No.1 & 2 that due amount could not be transferred to the loan account of the complainant.
4. Both the parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings, documents on record, and the arguments addressed, allowed the complaint vide order dated 25.3.2019 directing the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment. The awarded amount was ordered to be paid in a time bound manner, failing which, it was to entail penal consequences.
5. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the order passed is not justified. It was on account of some fault on the part of the complainant that the EMI amount could not be transferred in his loan account. We are not going to accept that argument. The Forum on analysis of evidence on record, accounts statement and other documents, observed as under :
“ The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, as per their Financial Statement (Ann.C-3) received payment of Rs.21,930/- i.e. first installment on 2.10.2017. However, the second EMI as due on 2.11.2017 was first shown as payment received, but in the same statement (Ann.C-3), the payment was denied being so received and the penalty of Rs.590/- on account of cheque bouncing charges have been levied in the loan account of the complainant. The OPs No.1 in its reply has admitted that the complainant had signed ECS Mandate and the EMI has to be auto debit from the account of the complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 has stated in the reply that it was merely a technical error on their part which has been corrected in the statement of account of the complainant and they are not claiming any amount from the complainant, as alleged in the complaint.
The Account Statement (Ann.C-3) upto 08.11.2018, has however, shown Rs.5350.92 as late payment charges and also shown Rs.590/- as cheque bouncing charges on transaction failure dated 2.11.2017.
The account statement Ann.R-1 produced by OP No.1 annexed with their reply, the statement is updated upto 12.3.2019 in which Rs.5409.40 as late payment charges and Rs.590/- as cheque bouncing charges, shown as Paid.
The Opposite Party No.1, only after filing of this complaint on 26.11.2018 before this Forum and during hearing of this matter, only on 12.3.2019 has waived off the disputed amount of late payment charges and cheque bouncing charges.
The Opposite Party No.3 in its written statement has alleged that Toyota Financial Services India Limited/OPs No.1 & 2 never presented the said ECS mandate to the bank on or before 2.11.2017 and as such, the payment of installment of Rs.21,930/- as due on 2.11.2017 was never debited from the account of complainant in favour of OPs No.1 & 2. It is also stated by Opposite Party No.3 that the OPs No.1 & 2 never brought this matter to the knowledge of Opposite Party No.3 for release of installment of EMI as due on 2.11.2017 and as such, suffered from negligence in proper handling of this financial issue.
The OPs No.1 & 2 has been found to be negligent in maintaining the loan account of the complainant. They cannot penalize the complainant for no fault on his part. In the present case, the Toyota Financial Services India Limited/OPs No.1 & 2 were themselves at fault in their failure to present the ECS mandate of complainant to HDFC Bank in time for deducting of EMI due on 2.11.2017, but imposed late payment charges and cheque bouncing charges, which was untenable. Despite latches on their part, Toyota Financial Services India Limited/OPs No.1 & 2, has imposed late payment charges on the amount of Rs.21,930/- as well as cheque bouncing charges, which is patently illegal on their part. Though the OPs No.1 & 2, at the end of the day i.e. on 12.3.2019 during the pendency of this complaint, has waived off the late payment charges and cheque bouncing charges, but they were admittedly at fault in imposing this misconceived late payment charges as well as cheque bouncing charges on the complainant. In financial transaction any lapse or omission on the part of bank or financial institution, has serious legal implications. Such misfeasance in financial transaction cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny.”
6. It is not in dispute that the complainant opted to transfer EMI amount through ECS to his loan account maintained with OP No.3/respondent No.2 whereof 2.1.2017. In between, amount qua instalment due on 2.11.2017 was not received. The appellant specifically admitted that it had happened due to some technical snag on its part. If that was so, the appellant was not justified to impose delay charges on the complainant. Despite taking up the matter, the said mistake was not corrected by the appellant and the complainant was forced to file a consumer complaint. The correction was made only when notice was issued in the complaint. Besides as above, the Forum has rightly observed that ECS mandate signed by the complainant was not handed over to OP No.3/respondent No.2 before the due date.
7 In view of the above, no case is made out to interfere in the order, under challenge. Accordingly the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
8 . Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
9. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
