By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
1.Complaint in short is as follows:-
Complainant is an advocate at Manjeri Bar Association. Complainant had availed
vehicle loan from first opposite party, Hindhuja Leyland Finance, for buying a scooty Suzuki access 125 with registration No. KL-10-AW-8459. The contract number of the above mentioned transaction is KLMPMOTTW00050 dated 16/12/2016. The contract period of the said contract was for 36 consecutive months from the first instalments onwards. Instalment amount on each month was Rs. 2502/-. The first instalment started from 05/02/2017 and complainant paid all the 36 instalments till the expiry as on 05/01/2020. The total amount of whole the instalments itself makes Rs. 90,072/- where the on-road price for the vehicle was about Rs. 60,000/- only. Some of the instalments were paid by the complainant directly to the company due to the failure of bank payment.
2. The second opposite party is the banker and complainant paid the instalments through his account with the second opposite party banker. Upon the each failure of the payments of above said loan instalments, the first opposite party had collected the instalment amount of Rs. 2502/- together with a penal amount of Rs. 500/- through their collection agent. At the same time the second opposite party had imposed and debited an amount of Rs. 236/- on the above said failure describing it as ‘’trf return”. Therefore, for every default of the instalments, besides Rs. 2502/-, there occurred an actual extra amount of Rs. 736/-.
3. On 25/01/2020 complainant had paid the entire loan amount and dues with its penal amounts as on 25/01/2020 at the office of first opposite party at Malappuram. Then the first opposite party told to the complainant that the entire loan was closed and a letter was issued to the complainant to that effect, and the NOC for hypothecation will be issued to complainant’s postal address within one month from 25/01/2020. But later, even after closing the entire above said loan amount as on 25/01/2020, the second opposite party debited Rs.236/- each on the dates 27/01/2020, 30/01/2020, 04/02/2020, 15/04/2020 and 17/04/2020 from complainant’s account. It altogether make a sum of Rs. 1180/-.
4. When the complainant enquired and complained about the above said illegal transaction before the first opposite party, then the first opposite party stated that it is the default from the second opposite party. Thereafter complainant gave a written complaint before the second opposite party alleging the above facts. Then second opposite party replied that it is the duty and fault from the first opposite party. Hence complainant travelled a lot and approached both opposite parties which caused mental agony and hardships to complainant.
5. Due to the deficiency of service from both the opposite parties, complainant lost an amount of Rs. 1180/- from his account and incurred Rs. 4000/- for travelling to both offices and for other expenses. Till date the first opposite party did not deliver the NOC for hypothecation agreement. Moreover complainant has not received no such NOC from first opposite party. Due to the deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties, which caused mental agony, physical hardships sufferings to complainant.
6. The prayer of the complainant is that, he is entitled to get Rs. 1180/- , the amount lost due to the deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties, Rs. 4,000/-as the amount for travelling to both offices of opposite parties and for other expenses to complainant, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Complainant also wants to get a direction from the Commission against opposite party No.1 to issue the NOC by post without any further delay.
7. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and
notice served on them and they appeared before the Commission through their counsel and filed version.
8. In their version opposite party No.1 denied all the allegations levelled by complainant against them. They admitted that complainant had availed a two wheeler loan from them upon the terms and conditions stipulated in the above said loan agreement. Opposite party had sanctioned a loan amount of Rs. 64,000/- to the complainant. They again stated that complainant assured to repay the loan amount with interest in 36 equal monthly instalments of Rs.2502/- for each month. Moreover it is revealed that complainant has defaulted repayment during the tenure of the loan. The account statements clearly indicates that complainant has no banking habit and he had not properly maintained his account for sufficient balance for clearing the EMI amount. The complainant is bound by the first schedule of the loan agreement and he bound to pay Rs.430/- as penalty and Rs.50/- as bank charges for each default of EMI.
9. They again stated that they are not involved in any such transaction between second opposite party and the complainant. Opposite party No.1 stated that complainant had paid entire loan amount and dues on 25/01/2020 at the office of opposite party No.1 at Malappuram. First opposite party told to the complainant that loan was closed and No Objection Certificate for hypothecation shall be issued to him within one month from 25/01/2020. They again admitted that the loan was closed on 25/01/2020 and they are ready to handover the NOC on 07/02/2020. They again stated that they informed the complainant to acknowledge the receipt of his termination letter after coming to branch office Malappuram,. But complainant did not turn up.
10. Thereafter they submitted that the allegation of complainant regarding Rs. 1180/-, they are not responsible for such acts of second opposite party. They did not debit a single amount from the complainant’s account after closure of the loan account. Complainant is a chronic defaulter and he is liable to pay cheque bounce charges and other penal charges as per the loan agreement. They had rendered all the services without any deficiency to the complainant. Hence they are not liable. 11. In their version opposite party No.2 also denied all the allegations levelled by complainant against them. They also admitted that complainant had availed a loan from 1st opposite party and he had paid the instalments through opposite party No.2 bank where complainant had an account. They admitted that due to lack of money in complainant’s account five cheques were dishonoured. Hence they charged Rs.1180/- from complainant. Moreover they are also not liable for the agreement made between complainant and opposite party No.1. They also admitted that after closing the loan of complainant, they charged the cheque bouncing charge of Rs.1180/- from complainant as per electronic clearing system. There is no deficiency in service from their side. It is the law of the bank. Hence they are not liable.
12. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in
lieu of Chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A5. Ext.A1 is the true copy closure acknowledgement of Loan contract No. KLMPMOTW00050 from Hindhuja Leyland Finance , Malappuram on 25/01/2020, Ext.A2 is the true copy of the entries in Bank pass book of Indian Bank , Kondotty branch, Ext.A3 is the true copy of the letter which the complainant sent to the Manager , Indian Bank (Alahabad), Kondotty Branch dated 20/05/2020 ,Ext.A4 is the true copy of the acknowledgement of the letter received by opposite party No.2 on 22/05/2020, Ext. A5 is the true copy of reply notice sent by opposite party No.2 to complainant on 30/05/2020. But opposite parties did not file affidavit and documents to prove their contentions. Hence they set exparte.
13. Heard the complainant and perused the affidavit and documents filed by complainant. The allegations against opposite parties are proved by the unchallenged evidence of complainant. There is no contra evidence in this matter. Moreover complainant produced five documents which are very supportive to prove his case. Opposite party No.2 admitted that they had withdrawn Rs. 1180/- from complainant’s account. Complainant filed a complaint before opposite party No.2 to enquire about the additional charge debited from his account by opposite party No.2. Then as per Ext. A5 opposite party No.2 replied for the letter of complainant that “it is the duty of the financial agency to initiate the closure of the ECS mandate once you close the loan account with them. Till the time ECS mandate present in your account and the sufficient balance not in the account to clear the ECS amount, the amount will be debited with the ECS return charges.” They directed the complainant to approach the opposite party No.1 to close the ECS mandate given in complainant’s account by them. From the documents it is clear that opposite party No.2 withdrawn Rs. 1180/- from complainant’s account as per banking laws. Hence the Commission finds that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint. Hence we allow this complaint holding that opposite parties are deficient in service.
14. We allow this complaint as follows:-
The opposite party No.1 is directed to issue NOC to complainant within one month from the date of order.
The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.1180/- (Rupees One thousand one hundred and eighty only) the amount received by the opposite party No.2 from the complainant after closing of the loan by complainant.
The opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as the cost of the proceedings.
If the above said amount is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite parties are liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.
Dated this 28th day of March, 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A5
Ext.A1 : True copy closure acknowledgement of Loan contract No.KLMPMOTW0050
from Hindhuja Leyland Finance, Malappuram on 25/01/2020.
Ext.A2 : True copy of the entries in Bank pass book of Indian Bank , Knodotty
branch.
Ext.A3 : True copy of the letter which the complainant sent to the Manager , Indian
Bank (Alahabad), Kondotty Branch dated 20/05/2020 .
Ext.A4 : True copy of the acknowledgement of the letter received by opposite party
No.2 on 22/05/2020.
Ext. A5 : True copy of reply notice sent by opposite party No.2 to complainant on
30/05/2020.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
CPR
