Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/512

Dinesh Sahni - Complainant(s)

Versus

Central Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Sahni Complainant

07 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 512 dated 09.11.2021.                                                        Date of decision: 07.10.2022.

 

Dinesh Sahni S/o. Ram Swarth Sahni, R/o.3980/1, 2^nd Floor Street No.10, Near Master Computer Kanda, Daba Road, Shimlapuri, Ludhiana.

…..Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Central Bank of India Branch, 177-178, Dugri Road, Basant Avenue, Ludhinz-141013 through its Manager/Authorized signatory.
2. IDFC First Bank Branch Adj Federal Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana.
3. Amit Verma Prop. of M/s. Raja Tele Shop Itta Wala Chowk, Near Shiv Mandir, New Janta Ngar, Ludhiana-141003.                                                                                                                    …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act,      2019.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Dinesh Sahni in person with Sh. Lal Babu,                                           Advocate.

For OP1                         :         None.

For OP2                         :         Sh. Anand Sabherwal, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

 

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he holds a savings bank account No.3497451434 with Central Bank of India, Dugri Road, Ludhiana (OP1) wherein EPF amounts of Rs.13,410/- and Rs.18,497/- were credited on 04.10.2021. OP1 illegally deducted an amount of Rs.295/- out of the account of the complainant. On 04.10.2021, the complainant withdrew Rs.2500/- from his account through ATM reducing the balance to Rs.28,164/-. On 11.10.2021, the complainant withdrew another amount of Rs.1010/- through online payment. However, his outstanding amount got reduced to Rs.6481/-. The complainant immediately went to a nearby ATM and obtained the mini statement which showed his balance at Rs.6481/- whereas there should have been a sum of Rs.27,154/- in his account. It is further alleged that the complainant had purchased one laptop from OP3 in the year 2018. The complainant paid two installments of laptop of Rs.3450/- each on 03.11.2018 and 03.12.2018 in cash. The remaining eight installments were got financed from OP2 and all the installments were paid through ECS out of his savings account maintained with OP1. However, the statement of account of OP2 is displaying an outstanding amount of Rs.16,148/-. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and has also caused mental harassment as well as monetary loss to the complainant. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the amount  of Rs.21,007/- to the complainant and the OPs be made to pay a compensation of Rs.40,000/-.

2.                Upon notice OP3 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte.

3.                OP1 initially appeared through counsel but no written statement was filed within time prescribed by law and defence of OP1 was struck of.

4.                OP2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement stating that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands. OP2 denied if the complainant purchased one laptop from OP3 in February 2018 and paid two installments to OP2 in cash or that the remaining eight installments were to be paid by OP2. According to OP2, on 28.12.2017, the complainant requested OP2 for a loan of Rs.34,500/- for purchasing Samsung refrigerator. On his request, the loan was sanctioned and disbursed vide loan account No.3497451434. The complainant agreed to repay the loan installments in ten equated monthly installments of Rs.3450/- each through ECS mandate. However, the complainant failed to make the installments as per repayment schedule and number of installments were returned back unpaid. On 05.05.2022, the complainant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.17,210/- towards the loan amount and the present complaint has been filed only to put pressure upon OP2. In fact, the complainant wants to avoid his liability to pay the outstanding loan amount. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

5.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit along with documents.

6.                OP2 also submitted affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Manpreet Singh, Legal Manager/Authorized representative along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R9.

7.                None has been appearing in this case on behalf of OP3. However, we have heard arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant and counsel for OP2 and gone through the record. We proceed to decide the case on merits.

8.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has taken a loan of Rs.34,500/- for purchasing a laptop whereas the OPs have forged and fabricated documents to show a loan of refrigerator. Thus, the OPs have committed a fraud with the complainant who has paid all the installments of loan but OP2 is still asking for more money from the complainant. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

9.                On the other hand, the counsel or OP2 has argued that the loan was sanctioned for purchase of a Samsung refrigerator. The complainant committed default in repayment of loan as many of installments of Rs.3450/- were not paid in time and as per document Ex. R2 a sum of Rs.17,564/- is still outstanding against the complainant who has filed a false and frivolous complaint alleging that he had not taken any loan for buying refrigerator or that he had raised a loan to buy a laptop from OP3.

10.              We have considered the above contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

11.              The complainant has not placed on record any document whereby he might have purchased a laptop by raising loan of Rs.34,500/- from OP2. No loan agreement or sanction letter has been placed on file by the complainant. On the contrary, OP2 has placed on record the acceptance letter Ex. R3 which is duly signed by the complainant wherein it is clearly mentioned that the loan has been advanced for buying a refrigerator. OP2 has further placed on record a copy of the invoice Ex R6 vide which the complainant purchased a fridge from OP3 for a sum of Rs.34,500/-. OP2 has further placed on record the statement of account in respect of the said loan which shows that the installments due through ECS on 05.03.2018, 05.05.2018, 05.06.2018 bounced. The statement clearly shows that the complainant has not been paying the installments in time and as per the foreclosure letter Ex. R2, a sum of Rs.6900/- is outstanding on account of principle and Rs.2000/- on account of cheque bounce charges and Rs.8664/- on account of penal charges and a total amount of Rs.17,564/- is outstanding. However, in our considered view, once the bouncing charges of Rs.2000/- were imposed, the imposition of additional penal charges of Rs.8664/- does not appear to be justified. In the given circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if OP2 is directed to square off the loan amount of Rs.6900/- + Rs.2000/- if the same is paid by the complainant within 20 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in case the complainant fails to pay this amount within stipulated time, OP2 would be entitled to recover the entire charges mentioned in the foreclosure letter Ex. R2.

12.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with a direction to the OPs to square off the loan amount of Rs.6900/- + Rs.2000/- if the same is paid by the complainant within 20 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in case the complainant fails to pay this amount within stipulated time, OP2 would be entitled to recover the entire charges mentioned in the foreclosure letter Ex. R2. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

13.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:07.10.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Dinesh Sahni Vs Central Bank of India                                    CC/21/512

Present:       Complainant Sh. Dinesh Sahni in person with Sh. Lal Babu,                       Advocate.

                   None for OP1.

                   Sh. Anand Sabherwal, Advocate for OP2

 

                   Sh. Lal Babu, Advocate filed power of attorney on behalf of the complainant.

                   None turned up for OP1 today also. None has been appearing on behalf of OP1 since 09.06.2022

                   Arguments on behalf of the counsel for the complainant and OP2 heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with a direction to the OPs to square off the loan amount of Rs.6900/- + Rs.2000/- if the same is paid by the complainant within 20 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in case the complainant fails to pay this amount within stipulated time, OP2 would be entitled to recover the entire charges mentioned in the foreclosure letter Ex. R2. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:07.10.2022.

Gobind Ram.