Delhi

North East

CC/208/2016

DEEPAK KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

05 Sep 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 208/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Deepak Kumar S/o Sh. Tejpal Gupta R/o L-18/1, Naveen Shahdara Delhi-110032.	Complainant
	Versus
	Central Bank of India Jayana Building Railway Road Shahdara, Delhi-110032.	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION  :

11.08.2016 05.09.2019 05.09.2019

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Brief facts as averred by the complainant in the present complaint are that the complainant had booked a TATA Nano CX BS-3 Car bearing No. DL 5CG 1186 with M/s Raghuvanshi Motors, Delhi on 20.04.2009 by paying Rs. 3,490/- as booking amount and for rest of the amount i.e. Rs. 1,31,876.68paise, had availed of vehicle loan from OP to the tune of Rs. 1,20,000/- vide loan application form dated 27.04.2009 which was sanctioned by OP payable in 36 months at EMI of Rs. 4,600/-. However, in the Sanction Letter, the loan amount was incorrectly written as Rs. 1,40,000/- instead of  Rs. 1,20,000/- which was then corrected by hand by the Chief Manager of OP under his signature on error pointed out by the complainant and then the said sanction letter was sent to the concerned loan department of OP for processing. But this correction in the Sanction Letter was not conveyed to loan department by OP and as a result the loan amount in complainant’s loan account No. 3066850406 remained as Rs. 1,40,000/- instead of Rs. 1,20,000/- which discrepancy the complainant discovered only when he received the statement of account dated 15.10.2010, 03.04.2012 and 17.07.2013. On discovering the same, the complainant stopped paying the EMIs and requested OP to rectify the error but all in vain. The OP filed a case against complainant before Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA) on 09.01.2014 and the same was referred to Lok Adalat where the complainant made the said submission of disbursal of loan of Rs. 1,20,000/- and not Rs. 1,40,000/- and expressed his willingness to make the due payments to OP. The matter was settled on payment of Rs. 33,500/- which sum was paid by the complainant vide cheque no. 993779 drawn on Union Bank of India current account no. 307605040132202 in favor of OP and the same was credited in OP’s account on 19.03.2014. The OP also issued NOC in favor of the complainant on 15.03.2014 on its letter head under stamp and seal and signature of its Chief Manager but yet again, OP did not inform about the settlement by compromise and receipt of payment from complainant to DLSA which continued to sent notices to complainant dated 02.08.2014, 18.11.2014, 03.02.2015, 02.08.2016 and 09.08.2016 for appearance under Section 20 (2) of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. OP even issued a demand letter dated 01.12.2015 to the complainant asking for payment of outstanding amount of Rs. 30,529/- against his vehicle loan availed from OP. The complainant could not forbear the shock of such court notices without any fault of his and suffered due to deficiency of service on the part of OP which not only misled DLSA into issuing notices to the complainant regarding non-payment of bank loan despite discharge of same in full and final and NOC issued but also sent a demand notice despite clearance of all outstanding dues. The complainant also issued al legal notice to OP dated 20.06.2016 seeking compensation but the same went unheeded to. Therefore, feeling aggrieved at the dereliction of duty and deficiency of service on the part of OP which even deprived the complainant of availing of any loan from other Banks/FIs affecting his business prospects, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint against the OP praying for issuance of directions against the OP to compensate him to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- for deprivation of financial assistance from other banks and mental tension and depression.

Complainant has attached copy of Sanction Letter dated 20.04.2009 for vehicle loan by OP for sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-, statement of loan account dated 15.10.2010, 03.04.2012 and 17.07.2013, original no due certificate dated 15.03.2014 issued by OP, notices issued by DLSA to the complainant for appearance in CBI vs Deepak Kumar Pre-lit case, copy of bank statement dated 21.04.2014 issued by UBI highlighting debit entry of Rs. 33,500/- dated 19.03.2014 in favor of OP and copy of legal notice dated 20.06.2016 by complainant to OP with postal and courier receipts.

2. Notice was issued to OP on 22.08.2016 which entered appearance and filed its written statement in which it took the preliminary objection that the complainant has withheld the fact that his loan account has been closed by OP after obtaining necessary permission from competent authority and instead filed the present complaint with ulterior motive when there is no negligence or deficiency of service on its part in abuse of process of law. OP urged that its Branch Manager pursued the matter for closure of loan account with its Regional Office (RO) and pursuant to the efforts, the RO of OP vide letter dated 06.08.2016 close the loan account of the complainant after obtaining necessary approvals and this fact was conveyed to the complainant through his counsel vide letter dated 22.08.2016 with CC to DLSA and after receiving notice dated 25.07.2016 from DLSA, the OP had informed DLSA too vide letter dated 22.08.2016 about the compromise entered into between complainant and itself regarding vehicle loan account and no outstanding dues in the said account. The OP submitted that as per the statement of account of complainant with respect to the vehicle loan, the same is showing NIL Balance as on 09.08.2016. OP further submitted in its defence that its RO generally files pre-lit applications to settle loan accounts with its borrowers to recover public money and the complainant in this case had stopped paying EMIs rendering his account NPA however in the present case, due to some bonafide communication gap between RO and Branch Office of OP, the pre-litigation notices continued to be sent by DLSA but nonetheless, the same did not cause any financial loss to the complainant and when this mistake came to the knowledge of OP, it immediately took up the matter with its RO for closure of loan account. The OP lastly stated that the complainant had concealed the factum of having filed and earlier complaint dated 24.06.2016 with DLSA against OP on receipt of notice dated 25.07.2016 of which, the OP vide letter dated 22.08.2016 had apprised DLSA of closure of loan account of the complainant. Therefore, OP prayed for dismissal of the present complaint on such plea taken.                    
3. Rejoinder to the written statement of OP was filed by the complainant in rebuttal to the defence taken in which complainant reiterated his grievance against OP and reference was made to several hand written and typed letters by the complainant to OP dated 18.06.2011, 07.08.2012, 03.05.2013 and 20.09.2013 requesting OP to rectify the loan amount and EMI charged but OP paid no attention to the pleas of the complainant. Complainant further submitted that OP cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong / negligence as per law.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by both parties exhibiting respective documents relied upon / filed alongwith their respective pleadings.
5. Written arguments were filed by both the parties in reiteration / reassertion of their respective grievance / defence. Complainant relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs KLM Royal Dutch Airlines JT 1999 (8) SC 640 passed on 02.11.1999 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that rendering of deficient service has to be considered and decided in each case according to its facts for which no hard and fast rule can be laid down. Inefficiency, lack of due care, absence of bonafide, rashness, haste or omission and the like may be factors in ascertaining deficiency.

OP did not appear after 18.02.2019 when the matter was part heard and Forum directed complainant for compliance / placing of certain documents relied upon.

6. We have heard the arguments addressed by the counsel for the complainant and have carefully perused the documentary evidence placed before us.

Admittedly, the vehicle loan sanction amount was incorrectly written as Rs. 1,40,000/- instead of Rs. 1,20,000/- in the Sanctioned Letter and despite hand written correction, continued to be in OP’s financial records in its loan department as Rs. 1,40,000/- as can be seen from the loan account statement issued by OP qua the vehicle loan placed on record which when came to the notice of the complainant would have prompted him to take up the matter with OP for correction of the amount since the EMIs were also incorrectly recovered from him and in event of this failure any prudent borrower would have stopped paying EMIs for non redressal / corrective measure. This was the first deficiency on the part of OP in lack of communication / coordination within its department. Further, when the loan dispute was settled between the parties in March 2014 on payment of lumpsum amount ofRs. 33,500/- by the complainant to OP and OP having issued No Due Certificate to the complainant, any pre-lit proceedings should have been automatically discontinued with due intimation of settlement given to the body concerned, in this case DLSA which OP failed to intimate due to which reason, DLSA continued sending notices to the complainant for appearance for two years from August 2014 to August 2016 which would have harassed the complainant no end despite having paid all dues to OP this was the second deficiency on the part of OP. Lastly, OP having sent a demand recovery notice dated 01.12.2015 to the complainant for payment of outstanding dues of Rs. 30,529/- is completely inexplicable and preposterous in view of having received the entire loan recovery amount way back in March 2014 itself and having issued NOC to the effect which speaks volumes about utter lack of coordination and inefficiency on the part of OP and the entire written statement of OP is totally silent on this aspect of having sent a recovery notice despite recovery made and NOC issued. On the contrary OP has itself admitted communication gap between its RO and BO regarding pre-lit application and mistake committed by it due to which notices of DLSA continued to be sent to the complainant. This is the third deficiency on the part of OP. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indochem Electronic Vs Addl. Collector of Customs (2006) 3 SCC 721 held that deficiency in service is must to award compensation and such deficiency must manifest itself for entitling complainant to compensation.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Landmark judgment of Charan Singh Vs Healing Touch AIR 2000 SC 3138 observed that while quantifying damages, consumer Forums are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual but also aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of service provider. Indeed no hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application / calculation of damages but relevant factors be taken into a count for assessing compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles or moderation. It is for the consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to the established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge. 

  

In the present case after due appreciation of the facts and documentary evidence placed on record and pleadings filed before us we have no hesitation in concluding that there has been a gross negligence and deficiency of service writ large on the part of OP on all three accounts as dealt with in the forgoing para of firstly, in correct loan amount not communicated to the loan department and not corrected despite several correspondence by the complainant, secondly not intimating DLSA about the settlement arrived at between the parties in March 2014 due to which DLSA continued sending notices to the complainant for the next two years and thirdly OP itself issuing a demand notice to the complainant in December 2015 itself admitting closure of its loan account in August 2016 of which intimation was given to complainant vide letter dated 22.08.2016 which is a stark example yet again of lack of coordination and deficiency in service for which inefficiency complainant cannot be made to suffer.

The Hon'ble National Commission in Lawang T. Pulger Vs ICICI Infotech Services Ltd II (2004) CPJ 41 (NC) held that lack of inter- branch communication is no ground for depriving rightful dues of complainant.

7. We therefore, allow the present complaint in as much as the complainant has proved his case against the OP deserving of compensation and we therefore direct OP to pay a sum of  Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deprivation of financial assistance, mental tension and deficiency of service on the part of OP.
8. Let the order be complied with by OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
10.  File be consigned to record room.
11.  Announced on 05.09.2019

 

(N.K. Sharma)    President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member