Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/823/2017

Dharminder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj

29 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/823/2017
Date of Institution	:	24/11/2017
Date of Decision	:	29/03/2019

Dharminder Singh r/o #125, New Darshani Bagh, Mani Majra, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Axis Bank Ltd., SCO No.350-352, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Manager.

2.     HDFC Bank Ltd., Plot No.28, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Manager.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                    

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Counsel for OP-1
	:	Sh. Sahil Singla, Vice Counsel for Sh. Sunil Narang, Counsel for OP-2.

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Allegations as contained in the consumer complaint are, complainant is having salary account No.50100028330934 with OP-2.  The complainant had raised a loan for his Swift Desire car from OP-1 and installment of Rs.11,550/- was being deducted from his account through ECS every month. He noticed that despite having sufficient balance in his account the ECS was bouncing.  The complainant obtained a loan account statement which reflected ECS was bouncing and Rs.858.75 or an even amount of Rs.400/- was deducted as ECS return charges on each and every occasion. Complainant’s case is, he had been regularly paying the EMIs without default and had closed the loan account as per time scheduled fixed. His further case is, on being apprised of having no fault, OP-1 had agreed to waive off Rs.2,000/- out of Rs.2,772/-, but, proper information was not given.  Now his case is, NOC not being given by OP-1 despite the entire loan amount paid. OP-1 overcharged a sum of Rs.12,637.88 as ECS return charges and OP-2 had raised the amount of Rs.7,687/-. Hence, it is prayed since OP-1 has charged the amount, therefore, it is liable to refund Rs.12,637.88 and OP-2 to waive off charges of Rs.7,687/-; pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and Rs.5,500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2.         OP-1 filed its written statement and, inter alia, raised preliminary objections of the present consumer complaint being not maintainable.  Its case is, HDFC Bank/OP-2 is responsible for bouncing of ECS even after sufficient balance in the account of the complainant.  It was for the HDFC Bank to firstly debit the loan instalment and then it was to be credited in the loan account of OP-1 in the name of the complainant. Since there was fault on the part of OP-2, therefore, penalty was rightly imposed as ECS had bounced.  Hence, as per RBI rules, penalty was imposed upon the complainant.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         OP-2 furnished its separate written reply and denied any deficiency in service on its part and the consumer complaint is not maintainable. Its case on merits is, most of the time ECS bounced as the complainant failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account. It is admitted, Rs.858.75 were deducted on 5.1.2016 and Rs.400.75 on 14.1.2016 from the account of the complainant on account of bouncing of ECS due to technical reasons.  It is also the case, OP-2 never demanded Rs.7,687/- for giving NOC to the complainant as the same was to be given by OP-1 from where the loan was raised. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
4.         Separate rejoinders to the written replies of OP-1 and OP-2 were filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After scanning of record, our findings are as under:-
7.         Per pleadings of the parties, what we could gather is, the complainant was not at fault in payment of regular monthly installments and it is also an admitted fact that the principal amount as well as interest stood paid to OP-1 from where the amount of loan was raised by the complainant.  There is no dispute inter se parties regarding these facts.
8.         OP-1 is not issuing the NOC despite receipt of principal amount as well as interest as the penalty charges for ECS bouncing charges has not been paid by the complainant. It is the admitted case of OP-1 in the written statement that definitely the fault did not lie with the complainant but the lapse was with OP-2 - the salary account holder of the complainant – as despite having sufficient balance in his account, the ECS was bounced.  We have also taken note of the assertions made in the written statement on behalf of OP-2 that two times penalty charges were imposed due to technical reasons. What are those technical reasons has not been explained and how the complainant was responsible for the development of the technical reasons has also not been put forth. Suffice it to say that baby of lapses on the part of service providers is being passed on to the lap of an innocent consumer by the OPs. For their own failure to correct the technical glitch, the complainant was being penalized which is unreasonable, dogmatic and despotic on the part of both the banks i.e. the service providers.  Their defence does satisfy the judicial conscience of this Forum of being just.
9.         In a single breath, OP-1 says that penal charges were imposed  as ECS was bounced by OP-2 and the complainant having no fault and he had sufficient amount in his salary account with his bank i.e. OP-2 even then when the consumer was not at fault, penalty was being imposed upon him without any rhyme or reasons. It is OP-1 who had accepted that the monthly installment is to be received through ECS from the bank account of the complainant being maintained by OP-2. Now for the lapse of the banker the consumer cannot be permitted to be penalized in a dogmatic manner or say a “Tughlaqi farmaan”.
10.         Admittedly, OP-2 has back tracked from their stand and denied that they have ever demanded over charges of Rs.7,687/- while it is also the admitted case of OP-1 that the complainant has discharged the entire liability.  Case is, they have overcharged an amount of Rs.12,637.88 on account of penalty imposed for ECS return charges. In this regard our attention was drawn to the statements of account furnished on record.
11.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed.  OPs are directed as under:-

1. OP-1 to refund the amount of Rs.12,637.88 (say Rs.12,638/-) to the complainant alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of institution of the present complaint till realization.
2. OP-2 to waive off the overdue charges of Rs.7,687/- imposed by it.
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- each to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him.
4. to pay costs of litigation of Rs.5,000/- each to the complainant.

12.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i)&(iii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of remaining directions.
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
29/03/2019	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President