Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/2575/2017

Gopalakrishna.Y.B, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

28 Sep 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 15.09.2017

                                                      Disposed on: 28.09.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.2575/2017

DATED THIS THE 28^th SEPTEMBER OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Gopalakrishna.Y.B,

S/o Sri.Bore Gowda,

Aged about 33 years,

C/o Ramkumar Mills Pvt. ltd., 4^th block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-10.  

 

By Adv.Smt.Leelakrishnan

and Sri.G.Sanjay     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

1. Axis Bank ltd.,

NPC1, 5^th floor, Gigaplex,

Plot no.I.T.5, MIDC,

Airoli Knowledge Park,

Airoli, Navi Mumbai-400708. Rep. by its General Manager

 

2. Sri.Ashok Ramakrishna,

Nodal Officer,

Axis Bank ltd.,

NPC1, 5^th floor, Gigaplex,

Plot no.I.T.5, MIDC, Airoli

Knowledge Park, Airoli,

Navi Mumbai-400708

 

3. The Branch Manager,

Axis Bank ltd.,

Basaveshwara Nagar,

Bengaluru,

KT Keers Plaza 2000,

472, 80 feet main road, Basaveshwara Nagar,

Bengaluru-79.

 

By Advocates M/s.J.S.Advocates & Legal Consultants

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party no.1, 2 & 3 (herein after referred as Op.no.1, 2 & 3 or Ops) seeking issuance of order against Ops for falsely and baselessly claiming amounts from him in spite of his having paid whatever amount was claimed for foreclosing his loan account and grant a compensation of Rs.50,000/- harassing the Complainant and causing mental agony and loss for no fault of his and to grant such other reliefs deem fit for which the Complainant is entitled to.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that, he holds ‘My Zone Credit Card’ of the Op bank. He applied for and obtained personal loan of Rs.1 lakh from Op.no.1 by using his credit card in the month of Aug 2016. As per the conditions stipulated by Op.no.1, loan amount was to be refunded by the Complainant in 36 monthly installments commencing from the month of Sept 2016. The Complainant further submits that, he had paid 4 monthly installments through online payment to Op. When the 5^th monthly installment was due, he requested Op.no.1 by his email dtd.18.01.17 for fore-closure of his loan account. Op.no.1 by its email dtd.18.01.17 indicated that the Complainant will have to pay a total sum of Rs.92,642.15. The Complainant on his part sent a cheque to Op.no.1 for Rs.92,643/- which has been duly encashed by Op.no.1 on 31.01.17 itself. In the credit card statement dtd.20.02.17, Op.no.1 accordingly showed payment amount due as Nil. When the matter stood thus, much to the shock and surprise, he received credit card statement dtd.20.03.17 showing payment amount due as Rs.5,733.19. Therefore the Complainant took up the matter with Op.no.1 by email dtd.26.04.17. By way of reply, Op.no.1 by email dtd.28.04.17 informed the Complainant that his request for reversal of the amount claimed has been declined. No reasons by way of explanation was forthcoming from Op.no1. Therefore Complainant issued legal notice dtd.02.05.17 to Op.no.2. But there was no response from Op.no.1 but it simply sent payment summary dtd.20.05.17 showing the amount due as Rs.6,643.32. A recovery notice dtd.14.06.17 was also received. Therefore, Complainant got issued a reminder legal notice dtd.15.06.17 to Op.no.2.  The Complainant on his part also sent a reminder by email dtd.24.06.17. By way of reply, Op.no.1 sent email justifying the demand and declining to reverse the entry regarding outstanding dues. So far no reply has been received from Op.no.2 in response to the legal notice. Inspite of the above, Op.no.1 mechanically sent payment summary dtd.19.08.17 showing the amount due as Rs.8236.57. As could be seen from this statement, Ops have drawn on 03.08.17 a sum of Rs.1,992.64 from the savings bank account of the Complainant with Op.no.3 and thereafter arrived at the balance as Rs.8,236.57. In other words, the total amount claimed from the Complainant as per the payment salary issued by Op.no.1 is Rs.10229.21. It is respectfully submitted that even this amount was not payable by the Complainant, since he has paid whatever amount claimed by the Op.no.1 in its email dtd.18.01.17 viz., Rs.92,642.15 fully and finally, the receipt of which Op.no1 has acknowledged. Therefore, the Complainant declined to pay the said unjust claim by Op.no.1. In the meanwhile, Op.no.3 and the recovery agents appointed and retained by it started demanding payment of the amount due and started coercing and harassing the Complainant in all conceivable ways. All the efforts made by the Complainant to persuade them to understand that nothing was due and payable by the Complainant to the Op.no.1 since he has cleared the foreclosure amount as early as 20.01.17. The Op.no.3 and the recovery agents continued their harassment without an end and they even will come to the place of his work for recovering the amount. The intensity of harassment, coercion and threat kept on increasing day by day. Left with no other alternative, the Complainant is constrained to approach this forum. Hence prays to allow the complaint.

 

3. On receipt of the notice, Op.no.1 to 3 did appear and filed version denying the contents of the complaint. The sum and substance of the version of the Ops are that, the complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts, hence liable to be dismissed. Ops submit that, Apex court of the land has set law that the borrowers have to repay the loan amount strictly in accordance with the terms of agreement. That the case of the Complainant is pertaining to accounts. Hence the same will not fall in the purview of this forum. The forum constituted under the CP Act is not the proper forum for taking accounts and deciding the amount due to any of the parties and that is to be done by the regular court of competent jurisdiction. Ops further submit that, it is very evident from the complaint filed by the Complainant that he had sought for ‘foreclosure of loan on card and not foreclosure of the card’. Even though both seems similar, there is a lot of difference between the above said closures. In case of loan account closure; only loan amount as on date of foreclosure will be calculated but unpaid EMI’s and future interest on the EMI will be excluded/will not be claimed. On top of it, the credit card can be used by the customer to an extent of limit provided by the bank. In case of card closure: Bank will calculate the closure amount including the card loan due + pending EMIs + any undue interest and more importantly, customer card will be closed and no further usage can be done by the enduser. Ops further submit that, the Complainant has mistook/confused with both the closure instances and due amount of Rs.5733.19 reflecting in the credit card statement dtd.20.03.17 as claimed by Ops is accurate as per the records maintained by the bank and the Complainant is accountable to pay towards the card closure as on month of March 2017. For even more clarity on the above said amount the Ops submits as under;

1) Loan balance as of 18.01.17 Rs.92642.15/-

2) As on 18.01.17 monthly statement of Jan 2017 was not generated and as such on 20.01.17 5^th month EMI was pending.

3) As the closure amount of Rs.92643/- was received on 31.01.17 part of the 6^th EMI was charged on the card.

Ops further submit that, upon request of the Complainant and also upon the service gesture, the Ops had also waived off interest charged of Rs.354.34, late payment fee of Rs.600/-, service tax reversal of Rs.53.15+Rs.90 in the month of May 2017. It is evident from the above instances that loan on card closure and card closure are entirely different and the Ops are not liable for any deficiency of service nor any unfair trade practice and the Complainant is still liable to pay Rs.10321.92 as on 20.10.17. Hence on these grounds and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.

         

          4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents as Ex-A2 to A17 and Ex-C1. The Asst., Manager Legal of Op filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents as Ex-R1 to R5. Both filed written arguments. Heard both side.

  

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether complaint filed by the Complainant is maintainable ? If so, whether he entitled for the relief sought for ?
2. What order ?

                   

           

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Negative.  

Point no.2: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1:  We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version filed by the Ops. It is not in dispute that Complainant has holds ‘My Zone Credit Card no.4514 5700 0117 0342’ of the Op bank. It is also not in dispute that, he had paid 4 monthly installments of Rs.3767.30 + service tax @ 15% on interest portion through online payment to Op towards the card loan account. When the 5^th monthly installment was due, he requested Op.no.1 bank by his email dtd.18.01.17 for fore-closure of his loan account. Op.no.1 by its email dtd.18.01.17 indicated that the Complainant will have to pay a total sum of Rs.92,642.15 as per the following details:

 

Principal outstanding	:	Rs.	89,552.59
Foreclosure fee	:	Rs.	2,686.57
Service tax @ 15%	:	Rs.	402.98
Total amount payable	:	Rs.	92,642.15

 

This fact is not in dispute. It is noticed that, Complainant has sent a cheque on 20.01.17 to Op.no.1 for Rs.92,643/- which has been duly encashed by Op.no.1 on 31.01.17 itself. This fact is also not disputed by Ops. When such being the fact, Complainant has received credit card statement dtd.20.03.17 showing payment amount due as Rs.5,733.19. In this context, he sought for the detail particulars but there was no any response. In this context, he also issued legal notice dtd.02.05.17 and also reminder legal notice dtd.15.06.17 for which also there was no any response. When the Complainant has requested Op.no.1 by its email dtd.18.01.17 for foreclosures of his loan account, Op sent reply email indicating that total amount payable is Rs.92,642.15. Accordingly, Complainant paid outstanding due as on that date.

 

8. The contention taken by Op is that, complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable before this forum as per the decision of Apex Court reported in Manu/SC/0570/2010 in the case of Indian Bank vs. Blue Jaggers, wherein it is held that:

“The court cannot lose sight of the fact that the bank is trustee of public funds. It cannot compromise the public interest for benefiting private individuals. Those who avail loan and avail financial facilities from the bank are duty bound to repay the amount strictly in accordance with the terms of contract. Any lapse in such matters is to be viewed seriously and the bank is not only entitled but duty bound to recover the amount by adopting all legally permissible methods.”

 

9. Op bank has also placed reliance on the another decision of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of R.Sethuraman vs. The Manager, Indian Overseas bank and another reported in III (1993) CPJ 1614, wherein it is held that ‘the case of the Complainant is pertaining to accounts. Hence the same will not fall in the purview of this forum. The forum constituted under the CP Act is not the proper forum for taking accounts and deciding the amount due to any of the parties and that is to be done by the regular court of competent jurisdiction’. We find there is considerable force in the contention taken by Op bank since the relationship between the Complainant and Op bank are as creditors and debtors.

 

10. Anyhow, we also placed reliance with regard to the mode of closure and also charging of an amount of Rs.5733.19. In this context, it is evident from the complaint filed by the Complainant that, he has sought for foreclosure of loan on card and not foreclosure of the card’. Even though both appears to be similar, there is a lot of difference between the above said closures. According to the case of the Op, in case of loan account closure; only loan amount as on date of foreclosure will be calculated but unpaid EMI’s and future interest on the EMI will be excluded/will not be claimed. On top of it, the credit card can be used by the customer to an extent of limit provided by the bank. In case of card closure: Bank will calculate the closure amount including the card loan due + pending EMIs + any undue interest and more importantly, customer card will be closed and no further usage can be done by the enduser. In this context, Complainant has mistook/confused with both the closure instances and due amount of Rs.5733.19 reflecting in the credit card statement dtd.20.03.17 as claimed by Ops is accurate as per the records maintained by the bank and the Complainant is accountable to pay towards the card closure as on month of March 2017. Further it is submitted by Op that, the loan balance as of 18.01.17 Rs.92,642.15 (as confirmed by the mail dtd.18.01.17 by customer support team of Ops). As on 18.01.17 monthly statement of Jan 2017 was not generated and as such on 20.01.17 (bill generating date) 5^th month EMI of Rs.4008.04 (includes principal + interest + service tax) was pending. As the closure amount of Rs.92,643/- was received on 31.01.17 part of the 6^th EMI of Rs.1,801.9 (interest + service tax) was charged on the card. Hence, upon request of the Complainant and also upon the service gesture, the Ops had also waived off interest charged of Rs.354.34, late payment fee of Rs.600/-, service tax reversal of Rs.53.15+Rs.90 in the month of May 2017. In this context, we find there is considerable force in the contention taken by Ops. It is also evident that, foreclosure of loan on card and foreclosure of the card are entirely different. In this context, Ops are not found to be deficient on their duties in respect of charging disputed claim amount as stated in the complaint. Hence, we do not find any laxity much less the deficiency of service on the part of Ops. Hence, in the light of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission cited supra, complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable before this forum in view of relationship of as debtor and creditor. Even on merits also complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed devoid of any merits. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 in the negative.

 

11. Point no.2: In the result, we passed the following:

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed not only on maintainability but also on merits.  

 

          2. Looking to the circumstances of the case, we direct both the parties to bear their own cost.   

         

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 28^th September 2018).

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Gopalakrishna.Y.B, who being the complainant was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A2	Email correspondence between the Complainant and Op.no.1 from 18.01.17 to 25.04.17
Ex-A3	Credit card statement dtd.20.02.17
Ex-A4	Credit card statement dtd.20.03.17
Ex-A5	Email of Complainant dtd.26.04.17
Ex-A7	Legal notice dtd.02.05.17 to Op.no.2
Ex-A8	Postal acknowledgement
Ex-A9	Payment summary dtd.20.05.17
Ex-A10	Recovery notice dtd.14.06.17
Ex-A11	Reminder legal notice dtd.15.06.17
Ex-A12	Postal acknowledgement
Ex-A13	Reminder email dtd.24.06.17
Ex-A14	Reply email dtd.30.06.17 from Op.no1
Ex-A15	Bank statement dtd.19.08.17
Ex-A6	Reply email dtd.26.04.17
Ex-A16	EMI statement
Ex-A17	Reconciliation statement
Ex-C1	Letter dtd.20.01.17

 

 

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Mahantesh.B.J, who being the Asst., Manager Legal of Op was examined.

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party/s

 

Ex-R1	Credit card statement dtd.20.01.17
Ex-R2	Credit card statement dtd.20.02.17
Ex-R3	Credit card statement dtd.20.05.17
Ex-R4	Credit card statement dtd.20.10.17
Ex-R5	Credit card statement dtd.20.07.16
	Credit card statements

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT