Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/394/2014

M/s.Meena Gaurdian - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

M/s.A.Manohar

11 Apr 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 25.09.2014

                                                                           Date of Order : 11.04.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                :  MEMBER-I

C.C. NO.394 /2014

WEDNESDAY THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL 2018

                                 

Mrs. Meena Gaurdian,

T 1 NAVIN’S GOVIND APARTMENT,

No.102, Kaliamman Koil Street,

Virugambakkam,

Chennai – 600 092.                                                       .. Complainant.

                                                            ..Vs..

 

AXIS BANK LTD,

RAC, Chennai,

Represented by its Manager,

2^nd Floor, Centennial Square,

No.6 A, Dr. Ambedkar Road,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai – 600 024.                                     ..  Opposite party.

 

Counsel for complainant             :  M/s. A. Manohar & others    

Counsel for opposite party          :  Mr. M.R. Uma Vijayan

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking issuance of the loan clearance certificate for the vehicle bearing Regn. No.TN 10 AC 92285 and a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, deficiency of service, negligence and damages caused against the complainant with cost.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

                The complainant purchased a fiat CAT B/ GRANDE PUNTO Car bearing Registration No.TN 10 AC 9228 on 30.05.2011 from Tata showroom, Ambattur.   While purchasing the above said vehicle she paid 70% of the principal amount and for the balance amount the dealer arranged loan facilities through AXIS Bank Chennai RAC Branch.  The loan amount was granted to a sum of Rs.3,18,150/- and the same was paid to the credit of the opposite party.  As per the agreement, the opposite party fixed equated monthly installment as Rs.9,964/- for 36 months which was also mutually understood by both of them subsequently, the loan No. was issued as AUR008200325342 the said monthly installments was paid to the credit of the opposite party through ECS. 

2.     The complainant submits that the loan was for a period of 3 years commencing from 10.07.2011 to 10.06.2014 ever since the date of purchase of the said vehicle there was sufficient amount on the account of the complainant and she had also directed the opposite party to collect money in regular installments through ECS. The complainant submits that she received a legal notice dated:02.08.2014 from the opposite party demanding a sum of Rs.31,506/- to be paid immediately, along with interest and other charges.  The complainant submits that there was sufficient funds lying on her account and it is only the failure of the opposite party to encash the amount through ECS and demanding the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.31,506/-  along with interest and other charges is violation of basic rules.   The action of the opposite  party in sending to CIBIL has lowered the complainant.  CIBIL score has worsened the situation and caused mental agony and it is an irreparable loss to the complainant.  The complainant submits that the opposite party had changed the EMI from Rs.9,964/- to Rs.10,502/- without the complainant’s knowledge.   As per the agreement the complainant has to pay only a sum of Rs.9,964/- as monthly installments and the opposite party had cunningly withdrawn a sum of Rs.10,502/- for every month from 10.07.2012 to 10.06.2014 makes out a clear case of cheating and breach of trust.    Even after the receipt of the reply notice dated:27.08.2014, the opposite party has not come forward to send the loan clearance certificate and pray for damages to a tune of Rs.15,00,000/- and therefore, it amounts to sheer negligence and deficiency of service.  Hence the complaint is filed.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party denies each and every allegation except those that are specifically admitted herein.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a car, on scrutiny of the complainant papers the opposite party had agreed to sanction the loan amount of Rs.3,18,150/- on two limbs i.e Rs.3,00,000/- initially at the time of availing the loan (i.e. on 10.06.2011)and the balance of Rs.18,150/-after one year, upon witnessing her prompt repayment being the first 12 EMIs being Rs.9,964/- and upon additional disbursement of Rs.18,150/- the balance 24 EMIs would be 10,502/- totally being 36 EMIs for the loan amount, that the complainant having agreed for the said schedule and repaid the installments till June 2012, considering her repayment track record as assured by the opposite party the additional loan of Rs.18,150/- was sanctioned on 28.06.2012 and the complainant having undisputedly agreed to the terms and conditions had repaid the EMI of Rs.10,502/- in between for the month of January 2013 to March 2013 aggregating to Rs.31,506/- and the finance charges for the said amount being Rs.16,270/-till the date of filing this written version totaling of Rs.49,462/- is due by the complainant to the opposite party.

4.     The opposite party submits that the bank statement and the loan account statement relied by her will endorse the case of the opposite party and negate her own allegation wherein the bank statement of Guardian George of IDBI Bank will exhibit that the last due of Rs.10,502/- was paid on 10.12.2012 and there was no payments for consecutive three months and the next payment was made only on 10.04.2013, the said true fact has been wantonly suppressed by the complainant for illegal gains and benefits.  All the actions of the opposite party are according to the procedure prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India and the activities of the opposite parties are completely under the control of the Reserve Bank of India and Union of India.  When there is any default in repaying the outstanding amount, the outstanding amount together with late fee and other charges is applicable, if payment is not made then the opposite party would first intimate the customer about the outstanding and request them over phone to pay the outstanding amount, after intimation over phone the complainant would be sent reminders about the payment and loan accounts will be reported to CIBIL  and therefore there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

5.   In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and no documents marked on the side of the  opposite party.

6.      The point for consideration before this Forum is:

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony and damages with cost as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled the vehicle loan clearance certificate as prayed for?

7.      On Point:

          Heard Both sides.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents, written arguments etc.  Admittedly, the complainant availed loan for purchasing a fiat CAT B /GRANDE PUNTO Car bearing registration No. TN 10 AC 9228 on 30.05.2011 from the Tata Showroom, Ambattur.  The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that while purchasing the vehicle, the complainant paid 70% of the principal amount and for the balance amount the dealer had arranged loan facilities through Axis Bank Chennai - RAC Branch, the opposite party herein.  Though the opposite party bank sanctioned Rs.3,18,150/- towards car loan disbursed only Rs.3,00,000/-.  Further the learned Counsel for the complainant contended that As per Ex.A5, Statement of Accounts, it is very clear that the loan was sanctioned to purchase fiat CAT B /GRANDE PUNTO Car bearing registration No. TN 10 AC 9228.  The sum of Rs.3,18,150/- financed and disbursed Rs.3,00,000/- on 30.05.2011.  The loan was for a period of 3 years commencing from 10.07.2011 to 10.06.2014 which was paid through monthly EMI at the rate of Rs.9,964/- by way of ECS (Electronic Clearing System) regularly without any default through post dated cheques issued to the opposite party bank.  The learned Counsel for the complainant further contended that as per Ex.A5, Statement of Accounts it is very clear that the financed amount of Rs.3,18,150/-shall be repaid within 36 equal monthly installments.  The complainant also had substantial amount in her account and thereby the opposite party regularly cleared the EMI through ECS.  As per Ex.A4, it is very clear that the complainant had cleared the loan without any default. 

8.       Further  the contention of the complainant is that, the opposite party bank acted in a malafide intention inorder to mislead the complainant, stated that a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was disbursed initially and thereafter, during the month of June 2012 an additional amount of Rs.18,150/- was disbursed and increased the EMI to the tune of Rs.10,502/- without any information.  Further the complainant contended that, on 02.08.2014  she received a legal notice from the opposite  party demanding to pay a sum of Rs.31,150/- with interest and other charges.   Since the claim of the opposite party is unethical; the complainant issued due Ex.A2, reply notice in clear terms that the opposite party is not entitled to claim any amount since there was substantial amount in the account to clear the EMI through ECS every month.  Further the complainant contended that, the allegations made in para. no.3 of the proof affidavit filed by the opposite party, that the sanctioned amount is Rs.3,18,150/- was disbursed on two limbs is utter false.  The opposite party has not filed any document to prove that under what circumstances this opposite party is compelled to disburse the loan in two installments for purchasing a car.  The sale consideration shall be paid to the dealer immediately on delivery of the car.  In this case, the opposite party had paid only a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- alone for purchasing the car.  It is an admitted fact that the loan was sanctioned only for the purpose of purchasing the car.  Under no circumstances the complainant agreed to receive the loan in two installments.  Further the contention of the complainant is that, the allegation that the complainant has not paid three installments from Jan 2013 to March 2013 is utter false.  Much less, the cheques issued by the complainant was bounced is imaginary, since all the payment towards EMI are only through ECS as per Ex.A4 and  the complainant kept substantial amount also for the period from 01.01.2013 to 31.03.2013 proves the deficiency in service of the oppose party.  Further the opposite party has rightly cleared the ECS amount of Rs.9,964/- from 16.07.2011 very regularly and arbitrarily increased the EMI amount of Rs.10,502/- and adjusted the excess amount towards the EMI and claimed huge amount of Rs.49,462/-.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party bank pleaded that it is acted under the guidelines of Reserve Bank rules.  But none of the rules produced before this Forum for claiming such huge imaginary amount of Rs.49,462/- and the disbursement of loan in two installments for purchasing the car, proves the malafide intention, malpractice and making false unethical claim.  Further, the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party arbitrarily without any reason took action by sending the complainant’s name to CIBIL and thereby reduced the image of the complainant who is a financial guarantor of 150 crores Company caused greater mental agony and irreparable loss.  The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation with loan clearance certificate. 

9.       The learned Counsel for the opposite party contended that the complainant filed this baseless complaint with untenable allegations and misleading bereft the document with a concocted story but the opposite party has not produced any document to prove.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has not discharged her entire loan without any default but the opposite party has not filed any document.  The complainant has not paid 3 EMIs that is from Jan 2013 to March 2013.  Hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed with cost.  But on a careful perusal of records, every time the complainant kept substantial amount to clear EMI through ECS.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that, this complaint is filed by the complainant for personal enrichment which amounts to abuse the process of law and leads to miscarriage  of justice is not acceptable because the opposite party has not filed any documents to prove such contention including the loan sanction proceedings.    Further, the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant approached for loan for purchasing a car to the tune of Rs.3,18,150/- which could be disbursed on two limbs i.e. R.3,00,000/- at the time of sanction of loan dated:10.06.2011 and the balance amount of Rs.18,160/-, after one year witnessing the prompt payment of EMI at the rate of Rs.9,964/- as per Ex.A5.  But the opposite party has not produced any document to show that the loan will be disbursed in two installments for such purchasing of car.  Equally, the EMI of Rs.9,964/-  is only for Rs.3,00,000/- and EMI of Rs.10,502/- is for Rs.31,180/-.  Without producing such document raising such contentions regarding disbursement and the EMI could not be accepted.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that, admittedly the total EMIs are 36.  The complainant promptly paid the installments up to 10.06.2012 except 2 EMIs for November 2011 and December 2011.  Hence the opposite party had financed additional amount of Rs.18,150/- on 28.06.2012 and the EMI amount is increased to Rs.10,502/-  from July 2012 for the balance 24 months.  But on a perusal of Ex.A5, that the transaction dated:10.12.2011 shows the cheque bouncing charges due Rs.552/- on the other hand, no issue of such cheque arises in this case since all the payment towards loan are only through ECS.  Under such circumstances, how the opposite party record cheque bouncing charges.  Equally, the transaction dated:10.12.2011 shows overdue charges due Rs.199/-.  How it arrives also has not been explained. Under such circumstances how the opposite party can say disbursed additional amount under the pretext prompt payer arise without intimation proves the unethical practice of the opposite party bank.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that, the complainant paid EMI at the rate of Rs.10,502/- from July 2012 and defaulted in payment of three EMIs for the month from Jan 2013 to March 2013 aggregating to Rs.31,506/-.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A5, it is apparently clear that during that period the complainant possessed substantial amount in her account;  inorder to clear the EMI through ECS, and on what reason, and on what circumstances, the allegation of non payment of three EMIs for the month of Jan 2013 to March 2013 arises has not been explained by the opposite party proves the unfair trade practice.  The opposite party is duty bound to clear the EMI through ECS.  The opposite party has not pleaded and proved that they have duly applied ECS for collecting EMI proves the deficiency in service beyond reasonable doubt. 

10.     Further, the contention of the opposite party is that as per the Reserve Bank of India rules, the opposite party is entitled to collect the  financial charges interest on late payment of EMI also, aggregating of Rs.49,462/- but the opposite party has not explained in detail regarding the alleged financial charges.  Equally the opposite party has not produced such RBI rules or guidelines.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the claim of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation is imaginary and erasing the name from CIBIL is against true fact.  But on a carful perusal of the records it is very clear that as per Ex.A4 during the month of December 2011 the complainant had substantial amount in her account.   Equally during the month of Jan 2013 to March 2013 also the complainant account was having substantial amount in her account.  The opposite party without applying ECS in a righteous manner made defaulted the loan and claiming financial charges is arbitrary and imaginary is also proved which amounts to unfair trade practice.  Equally the opposite party has not produced any notice to prove that the complainant’s name is given to CIBIL proves the deficiency in service.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that, the opposite party is entitled to collect only 3 installments amount of Rs.10,502/- each, totaling  of Rs.31,506/- from the account of the complainant and issue the vehicle loan clearance certificate and the opposite party shall erase the name of the complainant from the CIBIL and pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to issue the vehicle loan clearance certificate after collecting the 3 installment amounts of Rs.10,502/- each, totaling of Rs.31,506/- (Rupees thirty one thousand five hundred and six only) from the account of the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only)  towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 11^th day of April 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                       PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	02.08.2014	Copy of legal notice
Ex.A2	27.08.2014	Copy of reply notice sent to the Advocates D. Sathyaraj and S. Sheik Ismail with acknowledgement due
Ex.A3	27.08.2014	Copy of reply sent to the Axis Bank RAC Kodambakkam with acknowledgement due.
Ex.A4	01.05.2011 to 30.06.2014	Copy of State of Account from IDBI Bank
Ex.A5	14.08.2014	Copy of Statement of Loan Account from the Axis Bank

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

MEMBER –I                                                                       PRESIDENT