Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/189/2019

A Shalini Rebecca - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

M/s A Muthukumar

14 Oct 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 10.07.2019

Date of Reservation      : 14.09.2022

Date of Order               : 14.10.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:     TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                        THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                        THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN, B.Sc., MBA.,     : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 189/2019

FRIDAY, THE 14^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

A.Shalini Rebecca,

D/o Arulraj,

Aged about 26,

Residing at No.118/16, ‘O’ Block,

18^th Street, Agathiyar Nagar Villivakkam,

Chennai – 600 049.                                                             …Complainant

 

-Vs-

Capital First Limited,

Amarasri Building, 1^st and 3^rd Floor,

455, Anna Salai,

Teynampet,

Chennai – 600 018.                                                        ...  Opposite Party

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant             : M/s. A. Muthukumar

Counsel for the Opposite Party          : Exparte

 

        On perusal of records and, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-II, Thiru. S. Nandagopalan, B.Sc., MBA.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.20,000/- towards the expenses incurred and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards mental agony along with cost of the complaint.

 

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant submits that she was interested in purchasing a HONDA DIO two wheeler in April 2016 for which she paid a sum of Rs.2000/- towards booking fee and opted with a loan scheme advertised by the Opposite Party for that the Complainant submitted the following documents when applied for loan. 3 blank cheques of Bank of Baroda Anna Nagar branch , Aadhaar Card Xerox , Driving Licence Xerox , 5 Photos. Subsequently the Complainant decided not to buy the two wheeler and cancelled the same along with the loan scheme. The Complainant submits that later in 2017 the Opposite Party approached through phone and letter in June 2017 informing about the alleged default committed by the Complainant. The Complainant was shocked to hear the same as she had cancelled the loan scheme long ago in the year 2016 itself. The Complainant decided to pursue the same and approached the respondent's office and addressed a letter to the Opposite Party requesting the Opposite Party to close the loan account. The Complainant also orally explained the fact that the loan was cancelled long ago. The Opposite Party demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as "fees" to close the loan account. The Complainant paid the same and the officer of the Opposite Party assured to close the loan account, the Complainant also requested for the return of documents submitted when she approached the Opposite Party for loan in 2016.  Thereafter on 04.09.2017, the Opposite Party once again, even after assuring the closure of the account, addressed a letter to the Complainant, demanding a sum of Rs. 19,454.6/- in respect of the loan account no 5748406. The Complainant was very much disturbed by this letter and decided to clarify the facts once more. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party several times and clarified the factual position that the Complainant never took any loan and she once again demanded that the Opposite Party to return the documents that were taken when the Complainant applied for loan but in vain. The Opposite Party kept reassuring the Complainant that they would close the loan account and return the documents but never fulfilled it. The Complainant submits that when she moved on with her life thinking that the loan account was closed, the Opposite Party caused to issue a Lok-adalat summons to the Complainant, that summoned her to appear on 10.9.2018 at 10:30 AM at the ADR building with respect to lok-adalat case number 423/2018. The said case was again regarding the alleged default committed by the Complainant in not repaying the alleged loan. The Opposite Party sanctioned the loan to some other third Party in the name of the Complainant and in pinning the default on the Complainant for a loan that she did not contract. Finally on 10.9.2018, the Complainant wrote a detailed letter in the office of the respondent, explaining the error on the part of the Opposite Party in not closing the loan account and requesting the Opposite Party to close the loan account and return the documents. The Lok-adalat judge also wrote a note on the same letter requesting the concerned authorities to consider and close the case. The Opposite Party also agreed to close the loan account. The letter is filed along with the Complaint for better appreciation. In Spite of reminders and letters to the Opposite Party on 27.03.2019 again deposited the cheque in the Complainant account and got bounced and the charges has been levied in the Complainant account. Despite repeated oral and written requests and payment of prescribed fees, the Opposite Party failed to close the loan account even if the Complainant has not contracted any loan from the Opposite Party. Hence, the Complainant filed this Complaint. Hence the complaint.

3.    The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit on the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5 were marked. The written arguments of the Complainant was closed.

4.    Inspite of sufficient notice served on the Opposite Party , the Opposite Party failed to appear before this commission and they have been called absent and set Ex-parte.

 

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

 

Point No.1:-

        As per the Complaint filed by the Complainant she was interested to buy the HONDA DIO two wheeler in April 2016 for which she paid booking advance of Rs.2000/- and subsequently submitted the following documents to the Opposite Party when applied for loan. (i) 3 blank cheques of Bank of Baroda Anna Nagar branch , (ii) Aadhaar Card Xerox , (iii) Driving Licence Xerox , (iv) 5 Photos. Meanwhile, Complainant opted out from her proposal of buying the two wheeler hence decided not to go for a loan scheme with the Opposite Party. But to the Complainant's shock and surprise in the month of June 2017 Opposite party were approaching the Complainant to repay the loan amount which she had cancelled the loan scheme in the year 2016 itself. To pursue this issue the Complainant visited the Opposite Party office and addressed a letter stating to cancel the loan and as per Opposite Party demand paid Rs.1000/- fees to close the loan account No.5748406 as seen in Ex.A-1. Moreover, the Complainant insisted to return the documents submitted during the loan process in 2016 with the Opposite Party for which the Opposite Party assured to close the loan account and return of documents to the Complainant. Instead on 04.09.2017 the Opposite Party issued a demand notice letter to the Complainant demanding to settle the loan amount of Rs.19454/- in respect of the loan account No.5748406 as seen in Ex.A-2. The Opposite party was continuously sending reminders and notices to the Complainant who never took any loan from the Opposite Party Bank instead allowing the Complainant to suffer by not closing the loan Account and not handing over back the documents. Moreover on 28.08.2018 the Opposite Party issued a Lok Adalat summon to the Complainant to appear on 10.09.2018 at District Legal Services Authority by 10.30 A.M with the Case No.423/2018 as seen in Ex.A-3 making the Complainant to further more distress. To sort out this issue Complainant appeared at the Lok Adalat for the loan she never contracted with the Opposite Party. Subsequently the Complainant wrote a detailed letter explaining the error on the part of the Opposite Party by not closing the loan account and handovering back the documents even after repeated reminders as seen in Ex.A-4. Eventually the Lok Adalat Judge also wrote a note on the same letter requesting the concerned Opposite Party authorities to close the case as found in Ex.A-4. Moreover adding pain to the Complainants mental agony on 27.03.2019 the Opposite Party bounced the Complainants cheque by presenting it without her knowledge which is supposed to handover it back to the Complainant since she did not contract any loan with the Opposite Party. Instead deposited the Complainant cheque and it got bounced and the charges have been levied. Inspite of repeated oral and written requests the loan account was not closed even after paying the prescribed fees to the Opposite Party towards the loan closure charges. The Opposite Party sanctioned the loan to some other third party and pinning the default on the Complainant who has never contracted any loan from the Opposite Party by causing severe mental agony to the Complainant. The act of the Opposite Party in not closing the loan account, inspite of several representations made by the Complainant for closure of the loan which she only applied and never availed, even after payment of necessary charges by the Complainant to the Opposite Party as demanded by the Opposite Party to close the loan account, amounts to deficiency in service. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.          

Point Nos.2 &3:-

     As discussed as decided Point No.1 in favour of the Complainant, the Opposite Party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards deficiency in service and mental agony caused to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards cost. Accordingly, Point No.2 and 3 is answered.

In the result the Complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-  (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards deficiency in service and mental agony caused to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) towards costs, to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of receipt of this order till the date of realisation.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 14^th of October 2022. 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

 List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	23.06.2017	Letter by Complainant addressed to Respondent
Ex.A2	04.09.2017	Demand notice by the Opposite Party to the Complainant
Ex.A3	28.08.2018	Lok-adalat Summons
Ex.A4	10.09.2018	Letter addressed by the Complainant to the Opposite Party during Lok-adalat proceedings
Ex.A5	01.04.2016 to 10.04.2019	Statement of the alleged loan account No.5748406

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT