Haryana

StateCommission

A/615/2016

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

BANI SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

H.S.KATHPAL

08 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.615 of 2016

Date of Institution: 08.07.2016

                                                          Date of Decision: 08.03.2017

 

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Branch Office at Ground Floor, SCO No.02, Sector-16, Faridabad, Registered office at 36-38 A, Nirman Bhawan, 227, Nariman Point, Mumbai through its authorized representative Ms. Lavi Chaudhary.

 

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

 

Bani Singh Chaudhary, Plot No.132, Sanjay Colony, Sector-23, Faridabad.

         …..Respondent

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Ms.Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

Mr.Gaurav Gupta, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.1.

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 deleted vide order dated 18.10.2016.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

Complainant obtained loan of Rs. 4,43,000/- from Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Sector 16 Faridabad i.e. Opposite party (O.P.) No.2 which was to be repaid by way of monthly installment of Rs.17800/-. He instructed his bank i.e.  Syndicate Bank Faridabad to pay monthly installment through ECS system. As O.Ps. were charging high rate of interest and hidden charges, he opted for full and final settlement. Vide letter dated 16.09.2009 O.Ps. asked him to deposit Rs.70,000/- on or before 20.09.2009.  He handed over cheque No.936057 dated 19.09.2009 of Rs.70,000/- drawn on Syndicate Bank to the O.Ps.  It was encashed on 25.09.2009, but, in spite of closer of loan amount Syndicate Bank sent ECS for sum of Rs.17,800/-, whereas he was not liable to pay the same.  Despite his request O.Ps. did not return that amount. Hence the complaint.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that as per settlement any amount received by way of EMI would not be refunded. Complainant could not go beyond terms of settlement. So his complaint was not maintainable and the same be dismissed.

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad allowed complaint vide impugned order dated 19.05.2016 and directed as under:-

“As such the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to credit, jointly and severally, an amount of Rs.17,800/- in the account NO.82381250001270 of aforesaid Syndicate Bank alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of its debit till realization of amount and to pay Rs.2200/- on account of mental tension as well as Rs.1100/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that parties are bound by the terms and conditions of agreement.  As per Annexure A-4 dated 16.09.2009 if during process of settlement any EMI is received the same will not be refunded and will be adjusted in the account of complainant. He cannot get out of this agreement.  Learned District Forum wrongly allowed the complaint, so impugned order dated 19.06.2016 be set aside.  In support of his arguments she placed reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharathi Knitting co. Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of airfreight Ltd. C.P.J. 25 : 1996 (2).

7.      However there is no dispute as far as the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme court expressed in aforesaid case law is concerned, but, appellant/O.P. cannot derive any benefit from the same because the facts of this case are altogether different.  In the present case vide letter dated 16.09.2009 O.p. gave offer to complainant to deposit Rs.70,000/- on or before 20.09.2009 payable by cheque/D.D. or cash for full and final settlement. For ready reference the relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

“We wish to inform you that your proposal for full and final settlement of the above mentioned loan agreement, as per below scheduled payment of Rs.70000/- (rupees Seventy Thousand only) on or before 20-Sep-09 payable by chq/DD or cash is agreeable to us.”

As per this offer complainant deposited cheque No.936057 on 19.09.2009. It means that this contract or agreement came to an end on the said date. Thereafter there was no obligation qua complainant to pay any amount under the aforesaid loan.  The appellant-O.P. could have taken benefit of the clause referred, had amount of EMI paid before 20.09.2009. For ready reference relevant portion is also reproduced as under:-

“However we further would like to inform you that if during the process of aforesaid settlement, or post there off any of your EMI got cleared from your account, the same will not be refunded back to you and the same will be adjusted against loss incurred by bank against Principal/FC/Overdue interest amount.”

When the process of settlement came to an end O.P.-appellant was not entitled to apportion the amount sent by bank of complainant.   So these arguments are of o avail. The findings of learned District forum well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Hence the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.16,000/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

March 08th, 2017	Urvashi Agnihotri Member Addl.Bench		R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench
S.K