Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/27/2013

T.V.Venkataraman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person. T.V.Venkataraman.

26 Sep 2016

ORDER

   Date of Filing :   27.12.2012

                                                                      Date of Order :   26.09.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

            DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

                

C.C.NO.27/2013

MONDAY  26^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

 

T.V. Venkataraman,

S/o. (Late) T.V. Viswanathan,

No.61, U.R. Nagar,

Anna Nagar West,

Chennai 600 101.                                                       ..Complainant

                                         ..Vs..

 

1. The Managing Director,

The Tata Motors Limited

Passenger Car Business Unit,

5^th Floor, One Forbes,

Dr.V.B. Gandhi Marg,

Mumbai 400 023.

 

2. The Chief Manager,

Canara Bank – Habibullah Road Branch,

150 Habibullah Road,

Chennai 600 017.                                             ..Opposite parties.     

 

 

For the Complainant         :   M/s. T.V. Venkataraman

For the opposite party-1   :   M/s. Shivakumar & Suresh.

For the opposite party-2   :   M/s. R.Umasuthan & others     

 

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties  to pay a sum of Rs.31,820/- as interest as on date of filing and also to pay  compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint.  

ORDER

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-  

 

The complainant submit that, for the purchase of a Nano car for Rs.1,40,000/-, and has applied for booking  with the 1^st opposite party through the financer Canara Bank, the 2^nd opposite party, under a financial arrangement.  Accordingly the 2^nd opposite party Canara Bank has sanctioned a loan for the said amount to the complainant and the said amount was  paid by bank to the 1^st opposite party on 22.04.2009, and the said amount was kept in deposit with the 1^st opposite party, as per the terms and conditions.  The complainant further submit that he  has cancelled the booking and informed the same through the 2^nd opposite party to the 1^st opposite party on 19.07.2009.  As per the terms and conditions of the booking, the complainant was a successful allotee of the vehicle and supposed to get delivery of the vehicle by 31.08.2010.  But according to the complainant since no status of allotment and delivery of the vehicle was  duly intimated to the complainant by the opposite party and on other reasons the complainant has cancelled the vehicle.  The said deposit made by the complainant through the bank 2^nd opposite party with the 1^st opposite party, a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- was returned by the 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd opposite party bank only on  28.12.2010.  Since the booking of the vehicle was cancelled on 17.09.2009, the 1^st opposite party is liable to return the said booking amount of Rs.1,40,000/- to the 2^nd opposite party bank in the account of the complainant.  Whereas, without doing so, the 1^st opposite party has sent a cheque for Rs.2904.67 being net interest after deduction of TDS of Rs.323/- on a gross sum of Rs. 3227.67 for the period 23.06.2009 to 30.09.2009 for the said amount and also paid a sum of Rs.4956/- being the net interest for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.08.2010  without remitting the said amount in time with appropriate interest at the rate of 12%  and which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party.   The 2^nd opposite party  being the financier having arranged for the booking of the said vehicle and sanctioning loan and the said amount deposited  by them to the 1^st opposite party on behalf of the complainant, the 2^nd opposite party would have taken appropriate steps  against the 1^st opposite party for getting the amount remitted in the loan account of the complainant, but not taken any such steps, the said loan was kept as due by the complainant and was also kept  closed as NPA.  As such the act of the 2^nd opposite party amounts to deficiency in  service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  As such the complainant has sought for a sum of Rs.31,820/- as interest as on date of filing and also to pay  compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint.   Hence the complaint.   

 

Written Version of 1^st opposite party is  in briefly as follows:

2.     The 1^st opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The 1^st opposite party submit that the complainant is not a consumer according to the complaint mentioned transactions, the 2^nd  opposite party bank has financed the amount for booking of car by sanctioning loan to the complainant.  Further 1^st opposite party submit that the vehicle was allotted as per the terms and conditions to the complainant and supposed to be delivered on 31.08.2010.   Whereas complainant on his own wish cancelled the booking on 19.07.2009 and the 1^st opposite party was taken every steps to return the deposit amount of Rs.1,40,000/- paid by the complainant through bank and have mentioned that from the said booking amount  TDS  was cut for the entire financial year and three cheques were issued to the complainant.  Since the TDS was cut on the cumulative amount of the 3 cheques which exceeds Rs.5000/-.  However the complainant for the reason better known to him  had encashed only one cheque i.e  interest for 23.06.2009 to 03.09.2009 and did not encashed the amount  issued for the period 01.10.2009 to 31.03.2010.   The answering opposite party is ready to issue fresh cheque to the complainant for the interest amount for the period 03.09.2009 to 31.03.2010, if the proper address of the complainant is provided.    Therefore the  1^st opposite party is not liable to pay interest as claimed by the complainant in the complaint for the said amount and there is no deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party  and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Written Version of 2^nd opposite party is  in briefly as follows:

3.     The 2^nd  opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The 2^nd opposite party submit that the vehicle was booked by the complainant on 24.4.2009 by way of availing loan from the 2^nd opposite party on 24.4.2009.  The complainant cancelled his booking vide his letter dated 19.7.2009, which was duly communicated by the 2^nd opposite party to the 1^st opposite party.   Further the 2^nd opposite party states that the advanced amount paid by the complainant for the booking of the vehicle was refunded by the 1^st opposite party on 28.12.2010.   The principal loan amount of Rs.1,40,000/- which was availed by the complainant from the 2^nd opposite party for the booking of the vehicle was returned by the 1^st opposite party on 28.12.2010.  Hence the complainant is due and liable to pay interest to the 2^nd opposite party herein.   Though the complainant availed the loan for the booking of the said vehicle with the promise to repay the same along with interest calculated at the rate of 10% p.a. compounded with monthly rests, the complainant did not pay the interest amount as demanded by the 2^nd opposite party and liable to be paid by him to the 2^nd opposite party in terms of the loan documents executed by him in favour of the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant  miserably failed and neglected to service interest under the Nano car loan facility dated 24.4.2009.   As per Master circular relating to prudential norms on income recognition and asset classification issued by the Reserve Bank of India “when a borrower has got more than one loan account with a bank/financial institution and in the event of any one of the loan account between the two and / or among the many becoming an NPA all the loan accounts of the borrower concerned shall be classified as a deemed NPA.    The interest amount of Rs.31,820/- levied by the 2^nd opposite party on the complainant for the period from 28.4.2009 to 28.12.2010, should be paid by the 1t opposite party to him as damages due to deficiency of service.  As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

4.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A28 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Proof affidavit of  1 & 2  opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party and Ex.B3 & Ex.B4 marked  on the side of 2nd opposite party.

5.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

         1. Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency of

             service as alleged in the complaint by the complainant?

 

         2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief sought for

            against the opposite parties? If so  against whom and to what

            extent.?

 

6.     POINTS 1 to 2

Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, written version filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2  and the proof affidavit filed by complainant and  opposite parties 1 and 2, the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A28 filed on the side of the complainant, Ex.B1 and Ex.B2  filed on the side of 1^st opposite party and Ex.B3 and Ex.B4 filed on the side of 2^nd opposite party and considered the arguments of the learned  counsel appearing for the complainant and the  opposite parties 1 and 2.

7.     There is no dispute that the complainant, for the purchase of a Nano car for Rs.1,40,000/-, has applied for booking  with the 1^st opposite party through the financier Canara Bank, the 2^nd opposite party, under a financial arrangement. Accordingly the 2^nd opposite party Canara Bank has sanctioned a loan for the said amount to the complainant and the said amount was  paid by bank to the 1^st opposite party on 22-04-2009, and the said amount was kept in deposit with the 1^st opposite party, as per the terms and conditions. Whereas the complainant has cancelled the booking and informed the same through the 2^nd opposite party to the 1^st opposite party on 19.07.2009.  Though the 1^st opposite party has stated in their written version as per the terms and conditions of the booking, the complainant was a successful allotee of the vehicle and supposed to get delivery of the vehicle by 31-08-2010.  But according to the complainant since no status of allotment and delivery of the vehicle was not duly intimated to the complainant by the opposite party and on other reasons the complainant has cancelled the vehicle.  There is no dispute that the said deposit made by the complainant through the bank 2^nd opposite party with the 1^st opposite party, a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- was returned by the 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd opposite party bank only on  28.12.2010. 

8.     The complainant has raised grievance in the complaint against the 1^st opposite party that since the booking of the vehicle was cancelled on 19.07.2009, the 1^st opposite party is liable to return the said booking amount of Rs.1,40,000/- to the 2^nd opposite party bank in the account of the complainant. Whereas, without doing so, the 1^st opposite party has sent a cheque for Rs.2904.67 being net interest after deduction of TDS of Rs.323/- on a gross sum of Rs.3227.67 for the period 23.06.2009 to 30.09.2009 for the said amount and also paid a sum of Rs. 4956/- being the net interest for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.08.2010  without remitting the said amount in time with appropriate interest at the rate of 12%  and which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party  being the financier having arranged for the booking of the said vehicle and sanctioning loan and the said amount deposited  by them to the 1^st opposite party on behalf of the complainant, the 2^nd opposite party would have taken appropriate steps to against the 1^st opposite party for getting the amount remitted in the loan account of the complainant, but not taken any such steps, the said loan was kept as due by the complainant and was also kept  closed as NPA which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party as such complaint filed by the complainant claiming a sum of Rs.31,820/- as interest as on date of filing against the 1^st opposite party and also claiming compensation against both the opposite parties  Rs.25,000/-.

9.     The 1^st opposite party has resisted the complaint by contending that the complainant is not a consumer according to the complaint mentioned transactions, the 2^nd opposite party bank has financed the amount for booking of car by sanctioning loan to the complainant.  Further contended that the vehicle was allotted as per the terms and conditions to the complainant and supposed to be delivered on 31.08.2010.   Whereas complainant on his own wish cancelled the booking on 19.07.2009 and the 1^st opposite party was taken every steps to return the deposit amount of Rs.1,40,000/- paid by the complainant through bank and have mentioned that from the said booking amount  TDS  was cut for the entire financial year and three cheques were issued to the complainant.  Since the TDS was cut on the cumulative amount of the 3 cheques which exceeds Rs.5000/-.  However the complainant for the reason better known to him  had encashed only one cheque i.e  interest for 23.06.2009 to 03.09.2009 and did not encashed the amount  issued for the period 01.10.2009 to 31.03.2010.  The proof of online bank transaction made in this regard is annexed herewith and marked as  Annexure B (Ex.B2).  The answering opposite party  is ready to issue fresh cheque to the complainant for the interest amount for the period 03.09.2009 to 31.03.2010, if the proper address of the complainant is provided.    Therefore the  1^st opposite party is not liable to pay interest as claimed by the complainant in the complaint for the said amount and there is no deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party. 

10.    But on going through the terms and conditions for the booking application  found on the back side of  Ex.A1  = Ex.B1 and the Ex.B2, Ex.A8 the nature of the transaction mentioned in the complaint that booking of purchase of Nano Car by the complainant with the 1^st opposite party through the 2^nd opposite party Canara Bank which has granted loan for the same are all concerned, the complainant cannot be said that he has not having  privacy of contract with the 1^st opposite party,  therefore the contention raised by the 1^st opposite party that the complainant is not considered to be a consumer is not sustainable. 

11.    Further as per the terms and conditions clause 4 it is mentioned that “ …Tata motors will pay an interest per annum in case period of retention is greater than 1 year is less than 2 years”.  As contended by the complainant it is acceptable that no intimation of allotment and date of delivery of the vehicle was given by the 1st opposite party to the complainant or  the 2^nd opposite party, since no document for such contention of the 1^st opposite party that allotment was given and the vehicle was supposed to deliver on 31.08.2010.  Further there is no dispute that the complainant has cancelled the booking of the car on 19.07.2009  and it was accepted by the 1^st opposite party.  Therefore for the said deposit amount of Rs.1,40,000/-, the 1^st opposite party is liable to pay interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum from the date of deposit to the complainant.  Further as per the said terms and conditions mentioned in clause 7 in the event of cancellation, the 1^st opposite party is to return the said deposit amount (booking amount), to the purchaser within 30 days.  But there is no dispute that the said amount of Rs.1,40,000/- was returned by the 1^st opposite party to the bank on 28.12.2010,  Therefore, we are of the considered view that the 1^st opposite party is liable to pay interest at the rate of 8.5% from the date of deposit i.e 24.04.2009 to till the date of amount to be returnable (after 30 days of date of cancellation) i.e. 18.08.2009, if  calculated, accordingly the 1^st opposite party is to pay interest for the amount of Rs.1,40,000/- retained by them is comes to Rs.3967/-.  Further, since the cancellation of booking was made by the complainant and through the bank   and the same was accepted and not disputed by the 1^st opposite party, the 1^st opposite party is liable to return the said amount as per the terms and conditions within 30-days from the date of cancellation i.e 18.07.2009, whereas it is admitted that the 1^st opposite party has returned / remitted the said amount of Rs.1,40,000/- to the 2^nd opposite party bank in account of complainant only on 28.12.2010.  Therefore we are of the considered view that the period from 18.07.2009 to 28.12.2010, the amount retained by 1^st opposite party is of unwarranted without any basis as such out of the same the 1^st opposite party also would have benefited, hence the 1^st opposite party is, liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% for Rs.1,40,000/- for the said period i.e nearly for 15 months, if the said interest calculated will comes as Rs.21,000/- .  Therefore accordingly, as per the above calculation the 1^st opposite party is liable to pay total interest of Rs.24,967/- to the complainant. Therefore, according to the complaint, the complainant has received a sum of Rs. 2904.67 after deducting a sum of Rs.323/- being an income tax deduction  totaling Rs.3227.67 on 08-11-2009 and an another cheque dated 07.09.2010  for Rs.4956/- i.e total sum of Rs.8183.67 towards interest out of the interest of Rs.24967/- as calculated by us, as mentioned above.  Therefore we are of the considered view that the 1^st opposite party is to pay a sum of Rs. 16,783.33 as due to the complainant towards the payment of interest, for the alleged deposit amount of Rs.1,40,000/- retained and remitted after delay by the 1^st opposite party without any valid reason.  Contrary to this the complainant claim of interest of Rs.31,820/- as on date of complaint interest as due to the complainant in the said loan account  to the bank is not acceptable.  Further the delay in refund of the amount and the nonpayment of appropriate interest by the 1^st opposite party amounts to deficiency of service which caused unnecessary hard ship to the complainant is also acceptable.  Therefore the 1^st opposite party is also liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as just and reasonable compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  Further it is decided that if the complainant is not liable to pay income tax, on receipt of the necessary  receipt from the 1^st opposite party for the deduction of income tax TDS for Rs.323/-,  the complainant can be very well get refund  from the Income Tax authority.

 

12.    In respect of the  deficiency of service attributed against the 2^nd opposite party and claim made by the complainant  are concerned that the grievance attributed by the complainant against the 1^st opposite party that the 2^nd opposite party being the bank through which the booking of car was made with 1^st opposite party  is  cannot be said that the said bank 2^nd opposite party is bound and duty to take steps to collect the amount from the 1^st opposite party on eve of cancellation, and it is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case.  The 2^nd opposite party has sanctioned loan to the complainant as a borrower, on the consent of the complainant alone the said amount of Rs.1,40,000/- was paid to the 1^st opposite party that too by way of  deposit on behalf of the complainant.  Therefore according to the terms and conditions of the loan granted to the complainant by the 2^nd opposite party, since, the complainant has not paid any EMI or interest accrued,   as agreed in the said loan transactions and the amount was due to non refund made by the 1^st opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party is entitled to maintain the said account as per the terms and conditions and the RBI rules in the dealing of the said loan account of the complainant.  Therefore as contended by the 2^nd opposite party, it cannot be said to have been committed any deficiency of service  in maintaining the account  of the complainant, therefore in respect of the complaint mentioned loan availed by the complainant, which is due as on date as mentioned by the 2^nd opposite party.  Therefore, we are of the considered view that  the deficiency of service attributed against the 2^nd opposite party by the complainant is not sustainable and not valid, as such the complaint against the 2^nd opposite party is liable to be dismissed.   Accordingly  the points 1 and 2 are answered. 

In the result, this complaint is partly allowed.  The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay  a sum of Rs.16,783/- (Rupees sixteen thousand seven hundred and eighty three only) towards the interest for the delay in return of booking amount of Rs.1,40,000/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order, failing which the above said amount (Rs.16,783/- + Rs.5000/-) will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of payment.  This complaint against the 2^nd opposite party is dismissed without cost.

 

Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the  26^th  day  of  September   2016.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

 

Complainant’s Side documents :

Ex.A1-  24.4.2009     - Copy of Application form for TATA Nano booing & terms and

                               conditions.

Ex.A2-                    -        - Copy of Car loan sanction letter.

Ex.A3- 4.5.2009        - Copy of Bank Statement of complainant.

Ex.A4- 19.7.2009      - Copy of TATA Nano booking cancellation letter.

Ex.A5- 22.7.2009      - Copy of letter by 2^nd opposite party to Tata Nano dealer.

Ex.A6- 4.11.2009      - Copy of interest payment advice.

Ex.A7- 18.11.2009     - Copy of email sent by complainant to 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A8- 18.11.2009     - Copy of letter attached to email.

Ex.A9- 15.4.2010      - Copy of reminder letter to banker.

Ex.A10- 7.9.2010      - Copy of interest payment advice.

Ex.A11- 18.2.2011     - Copy of email to 1^st opposite party. 

Ex.A12- 18.2.2011     - Copy of letter copy attached to email dated 18.2.2011.

Ex.A13- 21.2.2011     - Copy of email to 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A14- 29.12.2012   - Copy of letter from 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.A15- 3.1.2013      - Copy of letter addressed to 1^st opposite party

Ex.A16- 4.1.2013      - Copy of Speed post ack. for letters to 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A17- 20.12.2010   - Copy of letter sent by 2^nd opposite party Tata Motors Limited.

Ex.A18- 21.1.2011     - Copy of letter sent by complainant to 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A19- 12.12.2012   - Copy of forwarding letter by the bank.

Ex.A20- 12.12.2012   - Copy of car loan statement.

Ex.A21- 26.6.2009     - Copy of Circular No.209/09, issued by the G.M. of the bank.

Ex.A22- 20.7.2009     - Copy of Circular No.245/09, issued by the G.M. of the bank.

Ex.A23- 2.4.2009      - Coy of Circular No.121/09, issued by the G.M. of the bank.

Ex.A24- 2.4.2009      - Copy of Annexure to HO Circular No.121/09.

Ex.A25- 11.12.2012   - Copy of letter by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.A26- 11.12.2012   - Copy of courier Rt. For sending the above letter.

Ex.A27- 20.12.2012   - Copy of letter by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.A28- 20.12.2012   - Copy of courier Rt. For sending the above letter.

 

Opposite parties’ side documents: - 

 

Ex.B1-          -       - Copy of the terms and conditions along with the application

                               Form is collectively.

Ex.B2- 29.1.2010    - The proof of dispatch of the cheques.

Ex.B3-          -       - Copy of Loan application.

Ex.B4- 24.4.2009    - Copy of Pronote.

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.