SRI BIJOY KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service in respect of non-refund of excess payment against Complainant’s Vehicle loan dues are the allegations arrayed against the Opp.Parties.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that, Complainant being an unemployed lady and to earn her livelihood purchased one Tractor bearing No. OR-29-2664 and its trailer No. OR-29-2665 being financed by OP No.1-Bank on dtd. 30.03.2010 with a total loan amount of Rs. 5,18,000/- and an amount of RS. 12,250/- fixed as monthly installment per month. The loan account no. of the Complainant is 31114794539 and complainant has paid the loan dues regularly till its closed. It is alleged that, in verification of the receipts and querry on dt. 14.05.2016, it is noticed that Op No.1-Bank has debited an excess amount of Rs. 57,227/- on different dates starting from dt. 03.04.2010 to 14.05.2016. It is also alleged that Complainant met the Branch Manager, Op No.1 with claim of excess payment, who admitted the mistake and assured the Complaint to return the excess amount, but all went invain. The Complainant also met Op No.2 for redressal of her grievance and Op No.2 advise the Complainant to met Op No.1, as the Ops paid a deafear to the grievance, complainant sustained financial loss of Rs. 57,227/- and mental agony. The acts of the Ops, according to complainant is deficiency in service, hence the complaint before the Forum with prayer that a direction may be given to Op No.1-Bank to return the extra amount to the Complainant along with interest and cost of litigation.
3. Being Noticed Op- No.1 appeared through their Ld. Counsel Mr. R.P.Lenka and filed written statement into the dispute denying the allegations in parawise replies, challenging the maintainability of the Complaint and submitting the facts of dispute, it is averred that Op No.1-Bank had arranged an advance on dtd. 30.03.2010 of Rs. 5,23,000/- in favour of complainant to purchase a Tractor vide loan Account No. 3111479453. It is averred that Insurance of the vehicle was insured in New India Assurance Company Ltd. and the premium amount along with Life Insurance Policy of Complainant namely ‘Dhana Rakshya Policy’ premiums were debited from Complainant’s Account. It is also averred that, due to inadvertent mistake in computer there were two(2) nos. of transactions on dt. 03.04.2010, where Rs. 8,527/- was wrongly debited from complainant’s loan account and on Notice the said amount was again adjusted on the Complainant’s loan Account. Countering the allegation of transactions dtd. 11.04.2011 and 23.03.2012 it is averred the an amount of Rs. 7,633/- and Rs. 8,712/- was debited from the complainant’s account towards the premium of Life Insurance Policy called as ‘Dhana Rakshya’. Further the transaction on dtd. 05.12.2012 for a total amount of Rs. 18,817/- was debited from Complainant’s loan account towards payment of the premium of the Tractor and there was no transaction on dt. 10.12.2012 as claimed by the complainant and lastly the alleged transaction on dtd. 14.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 573/- has been debited towards charges for delayed payment of EMIs. It is categorically averred by the Op No.-Bank that no illegal debit was done by the Op-Bank starting from dt. 03.04.2010 to 14.05.2016 and challenging the authenticity of the complaint it is averred that on its verification by complainant on dt. 14.05.2016, how the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 12,040/- on dtd. 12.08.2016 about 3 months of detection of irregularities as alleged by her in loan account? It is the case of the Op-Bank that non-settlement of Complainant’s loan account on one time basis as claimed by her and on its refusal complainant files such a false case against the Op-Bank and no deficiency in service has been committed by Op-Bank and the complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost. OpNo.2-Bank was deleted from the proceeding vide order No. 18dtd. 07.03.2018.
4. Heard the Learned Counsels appearing for the parties, perused the documents filed into the dispute. Complainant in order to support her case filed attested Xerox copies of statement of loan Account alongwith Pass Book and photocopy of ADHAR CARD. Op-Bank to substantiate their case filed documents as per the list on dt. 10.01.2018 and on 11.05.2018, copy of the list received by Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Before discussing the allegations, the maintainability of the complaint is to be decided as raised by the Op-bank. Op-Bank challenges the maintainability of complaint on 3 grounds. Firstly, on grounds of limitation, secondly complainant can’t be treated as a ‘consumer’, lastly on grounds of ‘Commercial’ use of the vehicle by the complainant. On grounds of limitation, it is the plea of the Op-Bank that as per the complaint the alleged excess debits was started from dt.03.04.2010 on different dates and complainant pays the loan dues regularly but did not notice the illegal debit and after 7 years complainant files this complaint, which is barred under ‘Limitation’ provided under C.P.Act-1986. It is further plea of the Op-Bank on dt. 14.05.2016, she came to know the excess debit of the amount, and the said date is metioned to create a complaint before the Forum. In this point we are of the opinion that in the written statement of OP-bank (question of facts) paragraph(VII), it is revealed that Op-Bank had debited an amount of Rs. 573/- on dt. 14.05.2016 from Complainant’s loan Account as delayed payment of EMI. It is clear that such debit on dt. 14.05.2016 from complainant’s loan Account is a part of the cause of action and the instant complaint is filed on dt. 29.03.2017, hence the complaint is filed within the time-limit provided under C.P.Act-1986. On second point of maintainability, it is raised by the Op-Bank that on dt. 12.08.2016 on closure of the loan account there is no relationship of Op-Bank and between the complainant as ‘ consumer’. In the instant dispute the loan Account of the complainant is closed on dt. 12.08.2016as revealed from the statement of loan Account filed by the parties. We, agree with the version of the Op-Bank that when there is no relationship exists between Complainant-loanee and Op-Bank as service provider and customer on event of closure of the loan Account and no question of ‘consideration’ is paid to Op- Bank for availing the service. Hence, the complainant is not a consumer as provided under Sec.2(d)(II) of C.P.Act-1986 and complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Lastly on point of commercial use of vehicle not a single document has been produced by the Op-Bank that the vehicle was used by the complainant for earning profit other than for maintaining her livelihood, Accordingly, we reject the pleas of maintainability as raised by Op-Bank and complaint is maintainable before this Forum as per the provisions of C.P.Act-1986.
Apart from observation of maintainability of the complaint and for better appreciation of facts on allegations of excess debit form Complainant’s loan account, we examined the documents filed by the parties, statement of loan account of the complainant bearing no. 31114794539. In the complaint, it is alleged that complainant came to know that on dt. 03.04.2010, 11.04.2011, 23.03.2012, 05.12.2012,10.12.2012 and on 14.05.2016 Op-Bank has illegally debited a total amount of Rs. 57,227/- of different amounts on these dates. Countering the allegations, Op-Bank submits that in inadvertently an amount of Rs. 8,527/- was debited on 03.04.2010 on Notice the said amount was credited to the loan account of the complainant on the same day. On allegations of excess debit on dt. 11.04.2011 and 23.03.2012 an amount of Rs. 7,633/- and Rs. 8,712/- respectively was debited towards premium of Life Insurance Policies called as ‘Dhana Raskhya’ and on dt. 05/12/2012 an total amount of Rs. 18,817/- was debited from complainant’s loan account towards Insurance premium of the financed vehicle. The Op-Bank further clarifies that on alleged date of 10.12.12 there was no transaction and on 14.05.2016 an amount of Rs. 573/- is debited towards delayed payment of EMI. We carefully gone through the statement of loan Account filed by the Complainant-loanee and Op-Bank, we don’t find any irregularities on part of the Op-Bank as alleged by the Complainant. Further, it is a fact that complainant was having the possession of his loan account pass book and statement of loan Account, and she has not raised any question of illegal debit starting from dt. 03.04.2010 and complainant being satisfied closed the loan Account on dt. 12.08.2016 by paying an of Rs. 12,040/- without objection the excess payment or illegal debit as alleged by her and also received the no due certificate with certain documents on dt. 08.09.2016 by putting her signature which revealed from the attested photocopy filed before this Forum. The Plea of the complainant after a long gap of six years i.e, on 14.05.2016, she came to know the illegal debits this plea is not convincing, trustworthy, and when Complainant-loanee acknowledged the debits/credits in her loan Account starting from dt. 03.04.2010 till closure of the loan Account, accordingly we are of the opinion that the complaint is filed without any reasonable and valid grounds. In the dispute complainant files certain documents after closure of the filing of evidence and hearing, accordingly same is not considered by this Forum for filing documents on a belated stage.
Having observations reflected above, the Complaint is dismissed without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 24th day of December,2018.
I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
