Sri B.NARAYANAPPA,

     President

1. The complainant C.S. Manjunatha has filed this complaint against opposite party No.1 The Manager, Bajaj Finance Ltd., Mysuru.  Opposite party No.2 State Bank of India, Shaktinagar branch, Mysore praying to direct the opposite party No.1 to pay compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- and any other reliefs deemed fit by this Commission.  

2. The brief facts are that:-

The complainant availed financial facility from opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.92,000/- in the month of March-2017 vide account No.508PST36208523 and he was regular in payment of monthly EMI of Rs.4,059/- within 5^th of every month through his SB account No.20090760501 maintained in SBI, Shaktinagar branch, Mysuru vide IFC code No.0013232 by means of ECS, but without any fault of complainant to his dismay the extra amounts on 03.01.2018 Rs.295/-, on 14.06.2018 Rs.295/-, on 04.10.2018 Rs.295/-, on 03.11.2018 Rs.295/-, on 04.11.2018 Rs.295/- and on 05.11.2018 Rs.295/- were debited from his S.B account and credited to opposite party No.1 totaling to Rs.1,770/-. Until November-2018 the complainant had paid 19 EMI’s pertaining to the above loan amount, without any default when he enquired, the reason with both the opposite parties about debit of Rs.1,770/- both opposite parties are blaming on each othernot giving correct reasons as to why the said amount is debited, therefore it is alleged that the opposite party No.1 not only cheated the complainant but also done the same thing to number of customers and extracted extra money.Therefore on 14.11.2018 the complainant got issued legal notice to opposite party No.1 calling upon him to refund Rs.1,770/- same was duly served on 17.11.2018, but opposite party No.1 failed to give reply nor complied with the notice and thereby alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1.Hence, this complaint.

3. After registration of this complaint, notices were ordered to be issued to opposite party Nos.1 and 2.  In response to notice opposite party Nos.1 and 2 appeared before this Commission through its counsels and have filed their separate version.  Opposite party No.1 in the version has stated that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, hence the same is liable to be dismissed.  Complaint is baseless, frivolous, the opposite party No.1 has not collected any amount other than the EMIs as alleged by the complainant it depicts in the statement of account maintained with opposite party No.2 and admitted availment of financial assistance of Rs.92,000/- by the complainant from opposite party No.1 on 14.03.2017 which was repayable in 36 equated monthly installments of Rs,4059/- each and also admitted that the complainant made timely payment of EMI’s of EMI No.1 to 5 and 8 to 18 and the EMI No.6, 7, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 got onwards the installments have got dishonored due to the reason of insufficient funds, the same were paid in cash by the complainant.  An amount of Rs.1,759/- was charged towards bouncing charges and Rs.600/- has been levied towards late payment penalty, it is falsely alleged that Rs.295/- debited from the account of complainant as alleged by the complainant.  The allegations of total deduction of Rs.1,770/- should be taken up by the complainant with opposite party No.2 and not with opposite party No.1.  For all these reasons prays to dismiss the complaint.

4.      The opposite party No.2 in the version has contended that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts hence the same is liable to be dismissed.  The averments made in para 4 to 11 are answerable by opposite party No.1 not by opposite party No.2.  It is learnt by opposite party No.2 that complainant availed financial facility from opposite party No.1 and EMI of the loan falls on 5^th of every month, but the ECS presentation was varies in a particular month like 5 different dates ESC presented to Bank through ESC manual as such opposite party No.1  is liable to pay the penalty charges of ECS along with other charges raised by the complainant, opposite party No.2 not at all committed deficiency in service.  Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.

5.   The complainant has filed his affidavit by way of examination in chief and the same was taken as PW.1 and got marked Exhibit P.1 to 5.  On the other hand, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have filed separate affidavits by way of examination in chief same were taken as RW.1 and 2. 

6. We have heard the arguments of both sides.  The complainant counsel as well as counsel for opposite party No.1 have also filed written arguments.

7. The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-  

1. Whether the complainant proves the alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1?
2.  What order?

8.      Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

       Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative;

       Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

9.      Point No.1:-  It is not in dispute that the complainant availed financial facility of Rs.92,000/- from opposite party No.1, in the month of March-2017 which was repayable in monthly EMI of Rs.4,059/- within 5^th of every month through opposite party No.2, wherein the complainant maintained his S.B account No.20090760501 by means of  ECS mode vide IFSC code No.0013232 the said fact has not been disputed and the same is admitted by opposite party No.1.  It is the allegation of the complainant that he was regular in  payment of monthly EMI of Rs.4,059/- within 5^th of every month, but  to his shock and surprise and without his default an amount of Rs.295/- on 03.01.2018, Rs.295/- on 14.06.2018,  Rs.295/- on 04.10.2018, Rs.295/- on 03.11.2018, Rs.295/- on 04.11.2018 and Rs.295/- and on 05.11.2018 totally a sum of Rs.1,770/- has been deducted from his account and the same was credited to opposite party No.1 finance account.  Therefore, it is alleged that opposite party No.1 not only cheated the complainant but also done the same thing to number of other customers.  Hence, he issued legal notice to opposite party No.1 on 14.11.2018 calling upon him to refund Rs.1,770/-, in spite of service of notice upon opposite party No.1, he neither replied the notice nor refunded the amount of Rs.1,770/-.

10.     In order to prove that an amount of Rs.1,770/- debited from his account and the same was credited to finance account of opposite party No.1, the complainant got marked Exhibit P.1 the statement of account maintained with opposite party No.2 the SBI, Shakthinagar branch, Mysuru, wherein it is mentioned that the amount of Rs.295/- each was debited from the account of complainant on number of occasions totalling to Rs.1,770/- towards charge recovered mandate taxation and the same was transferred to investment intermediar i.e., opposite party No.1.  Therefore from Exhibit P.1, it is crystal clear that an amount of Rs.1,770/- has been debited from the S.B account of the complainant and the same was credited to opposite party No.1 finance account.  Though the opposite party No.1 has contended that except EMI’s of Rs.4,059/- no additional amount has been credited to the account of opposite party No.1 i.e., a total amount of Rs.1,770/- as alleged by the complainant, but the said version of opposite party No.1 is without any proof,  as we have already stated above the complainant by producing Exhibit P.1 the statement of account has proved that the total amount of Rs.1,770/- has been debited from his account and the same was credited to the account of opposite party No.1.

11.      It is the specific contention of the opposite party No.2 in the version that the opposite party No.1 is very well aware that the date of ECS presentation means the 5^th  of every month, but the ECS presentation was varies in a particular month like 5 different dates ESC presented to Bank through ESC manual as such opposite  party No.1 is liable to pay penalty charges of ECS raised by the complainant.  It is admitted fact that the monthly EMI’s of the loan falls on 5^th of every month and the opposite party No.1 is well aware of the said fact, but as per the clear contention of opposite party No.2, the opposite party No.1 presented ECS on 5 different dates.  Therefore, the charge recovered for mandate fail to the tune of Rs.1,770/-  from the S.B account of complainant and the same was credited to the account of opposite party No.1 and it is clear from Exhibit P.1 the statement of account.  Therefore, it is crystal clear that due to the fault of opposite party No.1, as the opposite party No.1 was negligent and was not diligent in presentation of ECS on 5^th  of every month, but the opposite party No.1 presented the ECS on different dates.  Therefore the charges were levied due to mandate fail for presentation of ECS by opposite party No.1 and the charges collected by opposite party No.2 to the tune of Rs.1,770/- from the S.B account of complainant was transferred to the account of opposite party No.1.  Therefore from the material placed on record by the complainant, it is crystal clear that the opposite party No.1 has committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and in view of non-presentation of ECS on 5^th  of every month and due to presentation of the same on different dates, the opposite party No.2 levied charges and debited a sum of Rs.1,770/- from the account of complainant towards penalty and same was credited to the account of opposite party No.1.  Therefore, the opposite party No.1 is liable to refund Rs.1,770/- to the complainant apart from payment of compensation towards causing mental agony and deficiency in service to the complainant. Hence, we answer point No.1 partly in the affirmative.

12.    Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part.

The opposite party No.1 is hereby directed to refund Rs.1,770/- to the complainant with interest at 12% p.a. till payment within one month from the date of this order.

And also the opposite party No.1 is liable to pay compensation towards deficiency in service caused to complainant a sum of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the litigation with interest at 12% p.a. within one month from the date of this order till payment.

The complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed in view of no claim made against opposite party No.2.

     Furnish the copy of order to both the parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 17^th December, 2021)