Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/172/2016

Vijesh Bahadur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

16 Jun 2016

ORDER

   STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	172 of 2016
Date of Institution	09.06.2016
Date of Decision	16.06.2016

 

Vijesh Bahadur son of Jang Bahadur resident of House No.702, Sector 10, Panchkula – 134109.

                                        …..Appellant/Complainant

                                Versus

1. AXIS Bank Limited, SCO No.350-352, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh – 160022, through its Manager.
2. State Bank of India, SCO No.14, Sector 10, Panchkula – 134109, through its Manager.

                                        …..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:    SH. DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Vijesh Bahadur, appellant/complainant in person.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.05.2016, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it allowed Consumer Complaint bearing No.336 of 2015, only against Opposite Party No.1 with the following directions and dismissed the complaint qua Opposite Party No.2 :-

“12. In view of the above discussion, the complainant has produced cogent evidence to prove unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1. We find merit in the complaint and the same is allowed against Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 is directed to:-

 

[a]    Pay Rs.10,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[b]    Pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation;

            The complaint against Opposite Party No.2 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

13.        The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, Opposite Party No.1 shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] of Para above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from costs of litigation mentioned in sub-para [b] above.”

2.             The facts, in brief, are that the  complainant purchased one Maruti Alto LXI car from Autopace Limited, Chandigarh in May, 2013 and he took a car loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from Opposite Party No.1 (Axis Bank Ltd.), but the actual amount advanced to him was Rs.1,47,374/- instead of Rs.1,50,000/-. The aforesaid loan amount was to be paid by monthly installments/EMI of Rs.3261/- per month and for the purpose of payment of EMI, the complainant submitted ECS, which was filled by Opposite Party No.1 and the same was duly accepted and approved by Opposite Party No.2. Copy of the ECS is Annexure C-1. It was stated that the forms submitted for clearance of ECS were wrongly and negligently filled by either Opposite Party No.1 or Opposite Party No.2 or by their authorized service provider ‘TECHPROCESS’ because the said form were wrongly filled in the name of a dead joint account holder, who is not a loanee and was no longer account holder, as his name was deleted, as a result whereof, the ECS was rejected by Opposite Party No.2 (State Bank of India). It was further stated that the complainant provided cancelled cheque (Annexure C-5) at the time of sanctioning of loan along with passbook (Annexure C-11), which showed the name of the complainant. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 issued new cheque book under new guidelines of the Bank, as desired by Opposite Party No.1, but Opposite Party No.2 misprinted the name of Jang Chaudhary (the name is also wrongly printed) instead of the name of the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant was informed by Opposite Party No.1 about rejection of ECS vide letter dated 19.07.2013 (Annexure C-3) and accordingly the complainant started paying EMI through cross cheques, but unfortunately Opposite Party No.1 after some time cleared the ECS and levied foreclosure fine upon him (complainant) without informing him. Ultimately, the complainant served notices (Annexure C-6, C-6/A and C-9 and C-9/A) upon the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. Therefore, the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.             In its written statement, Opposite Party No.1, stated that there was discrepancy in the documents filed by the complainant with the replying Opposite Party, due to which, the ECS was made in the name of Jang Chaudhary. The ECS mandate was exactly as per the cancelled Cheque submitted by the complainant (Annexure C-5). It was further stated that at the time of submitting the ECS mandate, it was not pointed out by the complainant that there is a mismatch in the details of the cheque. It was further stated that copy of the passbook of the complainant (Annexure C-11) shows that his saving account was of year 2007 and he gave a defective cheque leaf to the replying Opposite Party in the year 2013. It was further stated that the complainant was fully aware of defect in cheque, yet he submitted the same with the replying Opposite Party. It was pleaded that the name of account holder shows cutting, which fortified that documents of the complainant were faulty. It was further pleaded that ECS mandate was subsequently approved and this was communicated to the complainant vide letter Annexure C-7. It was further stated that the complainant deposited some amount on his own after starting of the ECS mandate, which is treated as foreclosure and he never asked Opposite Party No.1 as to whether he should deposit the same. It was further stated that the amount deposited by the complainant is automatically processed by the system as per the agreement between the parties, treating the same as foreclosure amount. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.             In its written statement, Opposite Party No.2, stated that the matter is between the complainant and Opposite Party No.1 (Axis Bank Ltd.), since Opposite Party No.1 had illegally debited the loan installment twice wrongly from his account. It was further stated that the ECS mandate was sent by Opposite Party No.1 in favour of Jang Chaudhary, whose name was already deleted from the account, therefore, the ECS was rightly rejected. It was denied that forms were filled negligently by Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that the fact of printing the name of account holder as ‘Jang Bahadur’ was never informed by the complainant to the replying Opposite Party and even the complainant never tried to get the cheque book changed and kept on using the same for the reasons best known to him. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

5.             The complainant filed separate replications to the written statements of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written versions of both the Opposite Parties. 

6.             The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.             After hearing the complainant in person, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, allowed the complaint only against Opposite Party No.1 and dismissed the complaint against Opposite Party No.2, as stated above. 

8.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

9.             We have heard the appellant in person, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

10.           After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

11.           The core question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the Forum has rightly allowed the complaint against Opposite Party No.1 and granted adequate compensation to the complainant. The answer, to this, question is in the affirmative. The appellant/complainant, while filing the appeal, has submitted that  the loan was taken by him and not by Sh.Jang Chaudhary, who is a stranger to the transaction and all the documents were filled by the employee of respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 and the documents given to him were copy of pass book, cheque including cancelled cheques, ID proof etc. all in his name, as such, wrong filing of documents as Annexure C-2 is not the responsibility of the appellant. He further submitted that his father’s name is Jang Bahadur Chaudhary, who died in 2006 and was a joint account holder in the account with respondent No.2 and after his death, his name was deleted from the record of the bank and cutting on his name were done by the office of the bank duly counter signed. Therefore, the name of the appellant nowhere figured as joint account holder on the date the loan was advanced by respondent No.1 or the cheque book was issued or printed by respondent No.2. He further submitted that respondent No.1 received EMI through cheques w.e.f. 01.07.2013 onward and also received instalments through ECS, as was evident from Annexure C-8 without any information or knowledge of the appellant and at the same time imposed foreclosure penalty, which is wrong.  The appellant/complainant further submitted that the District Forum wrongly allowed the application of respondent No.1, as the said application was moved after 06.11.2015 when the order was reserved in this case and the document sought by respondent No.1 was with it and at this stage, when the arguments were heard and the case was reserved for orders, the application could not be allowed under law and moreover no opportunity was given to the appellant to rebut this new evidence. The appellant/complainant further stated that the compensation granted by the Forum is on the lower side and the same needs to be enhanced. He prayed for allowing the appeal and directions to respondent No.2 to issue correct cheque book to the appellant.

12.           After going through the record of the case, we find that undoubtedly respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 moved an application on 10.11.2015 to file additional affidavit alongwith copy of most important terms and loan cum hypothecation Agreement but the allegation of the appellant, at this stage, that no opportunity was given to him to rebut this new evidence, has no value, at all, because notice of the said application was issued to the appellant/complainant for 30.11.2015. On the said date i.e. 30.11.2015, notice sent to the complainant was received back with the remark ‘unclaimed’. Thereafter, on the next date of hearing i.e. 21.12.2015, the complainant appeared and sought time to file reply to the application, aforesaid, which was granted and the case was listed for 22.01.2016. On 22.01.2016, reply to the application was filed by the complainant and, thereafter, arguments on the application have been heard on 25.04.2016. We find that the application of respondent No.1 was rightly allowed by the Forum because the affidavit of Ms. Megha Ahluwalia, Manager of M/s Axis Bank Limited and copy of most important terms and conditions and loan-cum-hypothecation Agreement executed by the complainant with Opposite Party No.1 would be material for the just decision of the case. So, we do not find any fault in allowing the application because sufficient time was given to the complainant to rebut the said application and after taking reply to the application, filed by the complainant, the application was allowed. So, the objection taken by the appellant, being devoid of merit stands rejected.

13.           With regard to direction issued to respondent No.2 regarding issuance of fresh cheque book to the appellant is concerned, the appellant/complainant can anytime request respondent No.2 Bank for issuance of fresh cheque book in his own name. In the present case, the complainant has failed to place on record any document, which could prove that he informed respondent No.2 bank regarding issuance of wrong cheque book and requested to issue the fresh cheque book in his own name, rather he kept on using the said cheque book. Thus, the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint qua respondent No.2 Bank.

14.           The plea with regard to enhancement of compensation is concerned, we are of the view that the District Forum has rightly observed in para Nos.9 to 11, which read thus :-

“9.          The grievance of the Complainant is two-fold. Firstly, the Opposite Party No.1 had illegally debited the loan installment twice wrongly from his account one by ECS mandate and another by way of Cheques. Secondly, the Complainant is aggrieved by the action of the Opposite Party No.1 in charging foreclosure charges from him against his loan account.

10.          With regard to the first allegation levelled by the Complainant, it is observed that the Complainant had himself submitted the Cheques towards the payment of installments to the Opposite Party No.1 as the earlier ECS mandate was not found to be correct as the cancelled Cheque submitted by the Complainant for ECS mandate to the Opposite Party No.1 was carrying the name of his father (died, and having joint account with the Complainant). The Opposite Party No.2 had therefore rightly rejected the ECS mandate as the same was carrying the name of the father of the Complainant, whereas the loan was availed by the Complainant and the father’s name was not figuring in the account of the Complainant. Later, the Complainant submitted the Cheques of account maintained with Opposite Party No.2 to the Opposite Party No.1 which were being encashed by the Opposite Party No.1 against his loan account. The Complainant had also submitted the corrected ECS mandate to the Opposite Party No.1 which was also being used to encash by the Opposite Party No.1 from his account. Since the Complainant at his own had submitted the Cheques as well as the corrected ECS mandate with the Opposite Party No.1, hence we do not find any merit in the first allegation of the Complainant and the same is accordingly rejected. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties on this aspect.    

11.          Now, as far as the second allegation of the Complainant is concerned, the Opposite Party No.1 has miserably failed to produce on record any documentary evidence, much less in the shape of any instructions/ rules governing it, to show that it (OP No.1) is well within its right to charge foreclosure charges from the             Complainant, particularly in the absence of any such request (foreclosure) made by the Complainant. Also, there is nothing on record to infer that the amount deposited by the Complainant can automatically be processed by the system as per the agreement between the parties treating the same as foreclosure amount.     Hence, we find the Opposite Party No.1 deficient in rendering proper services to the    Complainant     on this score. “                   

15.           After going through the afore-extracted impugned order, we are of the view that the compensation granted by the Forum is adequate and we find that no ground is made out for enhancement of the same. So, the plea taken by the appellants for enhancement of compensation is rejected.      

16.           Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Forum was right, in granting relief to the complainant, as stated above.  Hence, the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

17.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld.

18.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

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

Pronounced.

16.06.2016                                                           Sd/-

 (DEV RAJ)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

rb