IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 129/09 DATED 17.06.2009<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant K.S.Nandish, Resource Person (Admn.) / NTM Languages, Hunsur Road, Manasagangotri, Mysore-06.<br /> (By Sri.M.Y.Kumar, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Officer Incharge or Miss. Asha, Pen-Pusher Barclays Finance, Opposite to Clock Tower, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri.Sridhar Chakke, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 01.04.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 28.04.2009<br /> Date of order : 17.06.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 20 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The grievance of the complainant in brief against the opposite party is, that he had applied for a personal loan of Rs.60,907/- to the opposite party repayable with installments. But, the opposite party at the time of disbursal of the said loan had deducted Rs.452/- + Rs.166/- towards the insurance premium and service tax respectively. Then he approached the opposite party for issue of receipts for that deducted amount, but they refused to give and caused inconvenience and mental agony. He has filed a complaint to the Reserve Bank of India, who has sought information from the opposite party. That he had been mislead with wrong information and subjected to inconvenience for 7 months from September 2008 to March 2009 by not issuing receipts for the deducted amount, and stated that insurance difference amount of Rs.403/- is payable to him and also claim other charges and damages for mental agony.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party has entered through his advocate and filed version, denying all allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant was aware of the deductions made from the loan amount and therefore there is no truth in the claim of the complainant that they have charged Rs.403/- as excess. It is further stated that claim of the complainant is illegal and the matter is before the Ombudsman on the complaint given by the complainant, which is seized of the matter and therefore complaint cannot be maintained in this Forum and thereby has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced a copy of the certificate of insurance, copy of the application form for enrolment of the Biral Sun Life Insurance Policy and communications he had received from the Reserve Bank of India. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the opposite party has in all deducted Rs.618/- towards the insurance premium as against Rs.215/- only and thereby collected excess of Rs.403/- and indulged in Unfair Trade Practice?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1:- The complaint filed by the complainant is not self explanatory as to his actual grievance and prayer. However, it appears that the complainant is aggrieved of the quantum of deduction made from out of his loan amount and in not issuing receipt for those deductions. The opposite party has not denied sanctioning of loan to the complainant and deduction of Rs.452/- + Rs.166/-, which is said to be towards the insurance premium and service tax, which comes to Rs.618/-. These deductions are not denied by the opposite party and it is evident from the enrolment form of Birla Sun Life Insurance Policy. It is not in dispute that on the opposite party sending proposal on behalf of the complainant to the Birla Sun Life Insurance, the said insurance company has issued a policy in the name of the complainant, which is effective from 24.07.2008. The Insurance company in the policy has clearly mentioned the total premium charged on the complainant as Rs.215.09 and service tax at 12.36 which comes to Rs.23.66 and the total amount payable to the insurance company by the complainant as Rs.238.75 only. Whereas the opposite party admittedly deducted Rs.618/- from out of the loan amount of the complainant, but has not accounted for the same.<br /> <br /> 7. The opposite party has not come up with any explanation or justification in having deducted Rs.618/- towards the insurance premium as against the actual premium of Rs.238.75 and even till today, the opposite party has not accounted for the excess amount he has deducted amounting to Rs.378.25. Thus, on perusal of the certificate of insurance issued in favour of the complainant, it is manifest that the liability of the complainant towards the insurance premium is Rs.238.75 only and opposite party has not accounted for the excess amount recovered, which in our view is nothing but an Unfair Trade Practice adopted by the opposite party in the course of his business. This act of the opposite party has naturally caused anxiety and mental agony to the complainant, which necessitated the complainant to even file a complaint against the opposite party to the Reserve Bank of India and referring of the matter to the Ombudsman. Therefore, we concur that the complainant has been put to unwanted mental agony.<br /> <br /> 8. The counsel representing the opposite party in the course of arguments argued that on the complaint given by the complainant to the Reserve Bank of India, the dispute is referred to the Ombudsman and when Ombudsman is ceased of the matter, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and to adjudicate upon. But, in view of the section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 we find no substance in the submission of the counsel for the opposite party and therefore his submission cannot be heard and we hold that this Forum has jurisdiction to decide the issue involved in this case. With the result, we answer point no.1 in the affirmative. The complainant has sought certain relief towards loss of salary etc., which are not substantiated. Thus, we pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed in part.<br /> 2. The opposite party is directed to refund the excess amount of Rs.378.25 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which he shall pay interest at 10% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment.<br /> 3. The opposite party shall also pay Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which he shall pay interest at 10% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment.<br /> 4. The opposite party shall also pay cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.<br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 17th June 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />