Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/314/2023

Lt. Col. (Retd) Sh. VIPIN BAKSHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

CANARA BANK - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ CHANDGOTHIA

11 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	314 of 2023
Date  of  Institution	:	04.06.2023
Date   of   Decision	:	11.07.2024

 

 

 

 

 

Lt. Col. (Retd.) Sh.Vipin Bakshi, 72 years, s/o Sh.W.N.Bakshi, House No.1618, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh 160019     

    …..Complainant

 

Versus

Canara Bank, SCO No.63, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh 160047 through its Branch Manager.

     ….. Opposite Party

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA,                MEMBER

                               

Argued by:-     Sh.Pankaj Chandgothia, Counsel for the complainant

Ms.Neelam Sharma, Counsel for the OP

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

1]       The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that he availed Car loan of Rs.4.50 lacs from OP on 21.11.2018 repayable in 48 equated monthly installments of Rs.11,209/- (Ann.C-1).  It is stated that the though OP Bank got signed the ECS instruction from the complainant, but it did not avail the ECS facility and kept on taking ad-hoc amounts from the complainant and started deducting EMI through ECS since 22.7.2019.  It is also stated that the Loan Statement would show that the OP Bank kept on charging various amounts as Penal interest from time to time without any information or explanation.  It is submitted that on 13.09.2019 the OP bank sent a letter to the complainant demanding arrears of Rs.10848.60 but how the bank raised arrears when it had full ECS authority from the complainant.  It is also submitted that the Loan Account Statement issued by the OPs in Jan., 2023 (Ann.C-2 & C-3) shows that the Rate of Interest in each of the statement is different, without bringing it to the knowledge of the complainant though its had reduced from the beginning.  It is pleaded that the OP bank issued letter dated 08.09.2021 for payment of arrears of Rs.12,238.82 and when the complainant informed the OP that the installment is being paid through ECS and asked them to explained the details of the arrears, they failed to do so.  It is also pleaded that during the moratorium period of 6 months in the year 2020, the OP bank still deducted one installment during Sept., 2020 through ECS.  It is stated that as per the demand of OP Bank, the complainant also issued cheques as asked for by the OP Bank but the OP did not present it.  It is also stated that the OP Bank charged Rs.1705/- extra over and above monthly EMI which is illegal.  It is submitted that the OP restructured the loan of the complainant a number of time without his consent.  The complainant also sent a notice in this regard to the OP Bank on 2.5.2023 (Ann.C-5) but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of the OP as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice with a prayer to direct the OP Bank to reverse all wrongful debit entries; overhaul the loan account as per sanction letter; refund excess amount; issue No Dues Certificate and to pay compensation, punitive damages; litigation cost etc.

 

2]       After service of notice, the OP appeared before this Commission through counsel and filed written version stating that the loan was sanctioned and disbursed to the complainant after completing the formalities (Ann.R-1).  It is stated that the complainant did not avail ECS method of payment and deposited the amount through bank account and handed over cheques for security purposes and the installment of loan was to be paid as per the terms & conditions mentioned in the loan account.  It is submitted that the penal interest was as per the condition of loan account and as per the instruction of RBI.  It is also submitted that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.67864.71 in cash against the installment due of Rs.78463/- (Rs.11209x7).   It is also submitted that the rate of interest has been charged as per terms & conditions of the loan documents.  It is pleaded that the OP Bank earlier sent letter dated 13.9.2019 and 08.09.2021 for deposit the amount but the complainant did not deposit the same.  It is also pleaded that the moratorium period was given to the borrowers as per the guidelines and instructions from time to time to the bank by RBI.  It is sated that as the complainant did not pay the overdue amount despite issuance of letters, as such the amount has been increased day by day.  It is stated that the complainant is liable to pay penal interest on the overdue/outstanding amount as per terms & conditions of the loan. It is asserted that due to change of Rate of Interest as account linked with floating rate. It is pleaded that the complainant is defaulter in making payment of loan and overdue amount and he is liable to pay the same. Denying other allegations the OP has prayed that the complaint be dismissed.   

        

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the entire record.

 

5]       From the perusal of the documents on record as well as pleadings of the parties, it is observed that the complainant failed to prove on record that he got activated the ECS Loan Repayment facility from his account for timely re-payment of loan installments to the OP after getting the loan amount.  The complainant himself admitted that ECS Loan Repayment started only from July, 2019 though the loan was disbursed to him on 21.11.2018 and earlier to that he paid some of the installments in cash to the OP Bank.  It is observed that mere submission or signing of ECS facility in favour of OP Bank would not absolve the complainant from repayment of loan installments till the ECS has not been effectively started and the liability of unpaid loan installments, if any, as well as interest etc. on it, as per loan conditions, is surely of the complainant/loanee.  So far the change in the Rate of Interest is concerned, it is observed that since the interest rate was admittedly floating, so it was subject to change from time to time and the complainant himself admitted that the rate of interest has been reduced. Therefore, no case of alleged deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is made out against the OP. Though it is a fit case to be dismissed with cost yet taking a lenient view, the cost is not imposed upon the complainant.

 

6]       In view of the above discussion & findings, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, the present consumer complaint stands dismissed.  No order as to costs.

7]       The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed off accordingly.

8]       Office is directed to return the complaint to the complainant against proper receipt and after retaining its copy.

        The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

11.07.2024                                                          Sd/-

                                                            (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER