Haryana

Ambala

CC/54/2015

Mayank Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank of Baroda - Opp.Party(s)

Lavish Arora

30 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 54 of 2015

                                                          Date of Institution         : 19.02.2015

                                                          Date of decision   : 30.10.2017

 

Mayank Arora age 26 years son of Shri Virender Kumar, resident of near         Sanjay Hospital, Panjlasa Chowk, Naraingarh, District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

 

1. Bank of Baroda, Branch Naraingarh, through its Manager.
2. ICICI Bank Limited SCO No.129-130-131, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

….…. Opposite parties.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER         

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

Present:       Sh.Vivek Sagar, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.Anil Singla, Advocate for OP No1.

                   Sh.A.S.Kaushik, Advocate for OP No.2.

 

ORDER

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is having saving bank account No.38810100000364 with OP No.1 and is having sufficient amount in it. The complainant purchased a car Honda Amaze after getting the vehicle financed from OP No.2 and the said loan was for five years having installment of Rs.8678/- per month vide account No.LACRG00027409827. The complainant has availed the benefit of ECS and by virtue of it the bank itself deducts the installment from the account of complainant. The Op No.2 intimated the complainant that the installment for the month of December 2014 was not cleared due to insufficient balance and Rs.400.50 & Rs.49.50 were charged as bounces charges and service tax.  Thereafter, the complainant visited OP No.1 and on verification of statement of account for the month of December, 2014 he came to know that Rs.30,000/- were lying in his account and the cheque was for Rs.8678/-. The OP No.1 has also deducted Rs.281/- on account of bouncing charges and it without verifying the account of the complainant dishonoured the cheque of the complainant qua installment of the vehicle. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and loss of repudiation in the general public, therefore, he got served legal notice upon the Ops to clear the cheque and to refund the amount deducted wrongly besides compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- but to no effect. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents, Annexure C1 to Annexure C5.

2.                          Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has taken many preliminary objections such as locus standi, cause of action, estoppal and concealment of material facts from this Forum. The complainant has availed loan facility from OP No.2 and the payment thereof was to be made in monthly installments and as per request of the complainant the installment of the loan by OP No.1 to OP No.2 out of the saving bank account through ECS facility and in that event whatever may be the balance in his account the system will show only an amount of Rs.3,000/- as balance amount and the remaining account was being shown in the shape of fixed deposit. The installment for the month of December, 2014 was not cleared inadvertently by the official operating system and this mistake was not intentional one and is due to inadvertence. The Op No.1 requested the complainant to request OP No.2 for clearing the installment of December, 2014 but he did not make any effort for the same. No consideration of the bank is involved and even it is providing benefits to the public without any negligence. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Annexure R1 and document Annexure R2.

3.                OP No.2 in its reply has taken many preliminary objections such as locus standi, cause of action, maintainability and estoppal etc. It has been further submitted that the loan installment for the month for the month of December, 2014 was not cleared on account of insufficient funds and the bank had charged Rs.400.50 as bouncing charges and Rs.49.50 as service tax from the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Annexure RA and documents Annexure R3 to Annexure R4.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

5.                          It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased a car after raising loan from OP No.2 and the payment was being made to the Op No.2 through Op No.1 as the complainant was having bank account with it. The grievance of the complainant is that he was having ECS facility and the installment of the loan would have been deducted automatically but due to lapse on the part of OP No.1 the payment for the month of December, 2014 could not be made and the cheque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds and OP No.2 being financer has charged Rs.400.50 & Rs.49.50 as penalty being delayed payment and service tax and the op No.1 has also charged Rs.281/- on account of bouncing charges. Admittedly, the OP No.1 has refunded the amount of Rs.281/- to the   complainant but mere making a payment deduct by it wrongly does not exonerate the bank for its liability because it is admitted by the Op No.1 in its reply that amount of Rs.30,000/- was lying in the bank account of the complainant but due to error in official operating system the amount of Rs.30,000/- was not shown and even as per ECS facility said amount was lying in the shop of FDR. It is worthwhile to mention here that when the ECS facility was availed by the complainant then the OP No.1 should not have dishonoured the cheque on the ground of insufficient funds. It is a gross negligence on the part of the OP No.1 and the same is also admitted in the reply. It is legal preposition of law that the admission need not to be proved, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at a conclusion that the  due to negligent act of the Op No.1 the Op No.2 has levied penalty upon the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has to suffer mental agony, harassment as well as it also hit the repudiation of the complainant and he was forced to file the present complaint whenever OP No.1 can sort out the grievance of the complainant at initial stage. Hence, the present complaint is partly allowed only against OP No.1 and the complainant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,000/- as well as cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.3000/- from OP No.1. The complaint against Op No.2 stands dismissed.  Compliance of the order be made within 30 days, failing which the awarded amount would carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 30.10.2017                                                                                                                                             

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)           (ANAMIKA GUPTA)       (D.N.ARORA)

                 Member                                   Member                           President                                                                                              District Consumer Disputes                                                                                 Redressal Forum, Ambala.