Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/933/2016

Ritu Dhawan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Capital First Ltd., Loan Agency - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

18 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	933/2016
Date of Institution	:	01.11.2016
Date of Decision	:	18.09.2017

 

                                       

                                               

Ritu Dhawan d/o Sh.Dinesh Dhawan r/o H.No.578, Sector 56, Chandigarh(UT).

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

1. Capital First Ltd., Loan Agency, SCO 56, 1^st Floor, Madhya Floor, Sector 26, Chandigarh through its Authorized Signatory/Manager.

 

2. Swami Auto Bikes Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.5, Industrial Area Phase-I, Chandigarh (UT), through its Authorized Signatory/Manager.

 

3. Central bank of India, SCO No.23, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh through its  Branch Manager.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:    SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. for the complainant alongwith the complainant.

Ms.Ramandeep kaur, Adv. for OP No.1  alongwith Sh.Ajay, Collection Manager of OP No.1.

OP No.2 exparte.

None for OP No.3.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         In brief, the case of the complainant as alleged is that she purchased two wheeler make Suzuki Swish for Rs.52,874.59P from OP No.2 by making down payment of Rs.20,000/- and raising loan for the remaining amount from OP No.1. The said loan was to be repaid in 24 installments of EMI of Rs.2085/- per month.  She completed all the formalities including the ECS form  etc.  She had given six cheques under her signatures having a/c No.3472172368 to OP No.1 as security. According to the complainant, the first EMI was due on March, 2016 and the same was to be paid through ECS but despite this OP No.1 presented the cheque on two occasions i.e. 05.03.2016 and 08.03.2016 which was bounced despite having sufficient balance in her account. Ultimately she approached OP No.1 but it failed to give any satisfactory reply and finally she paid the said installment in cash.  It has further been averred that OP No.1 repeated the same thing in the month of April, 2016 and as she deposited the said EMI in cash with OP No.1 and requested it to check the loan documents as she had already submitted the ECS form to OP No.1 for auto payment.  She was informed by the official of OP No.1 that the earlier ECS form was misplaced and accordingly, she again submitted the ECS form and OP No.1 assured her that from May, 2016, the EMI would be deducted through ECS from her account. According to the complainant, OP No.1 repeated the same thing in the month of May, 2016 again and this time she refused to pay the EMI in cash and requested OP No.1 to collect the same through ECS as she had already submitted the ECS form with it. She also requested OP No.1 to exempt bouncing charges and extra interest amount on the EMI of May, 2016 but it refused to do and as such she did not paid the EMI of May, 2016 and they adding penalty charges on the same. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its written statement, OP No.1 has admitted the fact that the complainant availed the loan for the purchase of the vehicle in question which was to be paid in 24 EMI of Rs.2085/- per month.  It has further been pleaded that it presented the ECS in the bank but the same was got dishonoured on the ground that the “signatures mismatch” and the complainant was duly informed accordingly and she was requested to pay installment as early as possible.  It has further been pleaded that it again present the installment in the account of the complainant for encashment of installment but the same was dishonoured on the ground of insufficient grounds, Annexure R-1. Since the ECS was dishonoured again and again, the complainant was asked to contact her Bank and after that she again submitted the ECS form which was again submitted to the complainant’s bank. It was denied that the ECS form was misplaced.  It has further been pleaded that it again presented the ECS in the month of May but the same was dishonoured on the ground of “miscellaneous”. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         In its separate written statement, OP No.3 pleaded the cheque was returned with reason “signature differ”.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.         We have heard the arguments advanced by both the sides and gone through the documentary evidence on record.

 

5.         During the course of the arguments, Sh.Ajay, Collection Manager of OP No.1 who is present with his Counsel has admitted the fault and submitted that OP No.1 is ready to waive off the bouncing charges and late payment charges in respect of the loan account of the complainant. He also appended a note to this effect on the first page of the complaint itself. 
6.         On the other hand, the Counsel for the complainant has submitted that OP No.1 has shown its willingness to waive off the bouncing charges and late payment interest only after the institution of the present complaint and as such the complainant is required to be compensated for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by her and the litigation expenses.
7.         Since OP No.1 has shown its willingness and readiness to waive off the bouncing charges and late payment charges of the loan account of the complainant after filing of the instant complaint before this Forum and, therefore, the complainant is required to be appropriately compensated for the harassment and mental agony undergone by her at the hands of OP No.1.  Had OP No.1 redressed the genuine grievance of the complainant before filing of the complaint then the position certainly would have been different but it failed to do so despite her repeated requests/visits.  However, keeping in view overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the complainant is awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment besides Rs.4,000/- as litigation expenses.  We order accordingly.
8.         In view of the foregoing discussion, the complaint is allowed with a direction to OP No.1 to waive of bouncing charges and late payment charges of the loan account in question and to issue a fresh statement of account to this effect to the complainant forthwith. OP No.1 shall also pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment besides Rs.4,000/- as litigation expenses.  This order be complied with by OP No.1, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its copy failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on the awarded amounts from the date of this order till it is paid.
9.         The complaint qua OP No.2 and 3 stands dismissed.
10.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

18/09/2017

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER