Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/266/2006

O.Raman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Centuration Bank of Punjab Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Balan Haridas

01 Sep 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :  21.04.2006

                                                                        Date of Order :  01.09.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

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

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. 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.266/2006

FRIDAY THIS 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017

 

G. Raman,

S/o. Ongali,

Residing at No.10/5,

Gandhi Nagar,

Kolathur,

Chennai 600 099.                                         .. Complainant

                                        ..Vs..

 

M/s. Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager,

No.8-B, Raja Annamalai Building,

No.19, Marshalls Road,

Egmore, Chennai 600 008.                           .. Opposite party.

 

 

Counsel for Complainant          :    M/s. Balan Haridas & others   

Counsel for opposite party       :    M/s.R.Mahalingam      

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to hand over 7 cheques along with original R.C. book and other documents related to Hero Honda CD Dawn bearing No.TN 05 L 5149 with no due certificate  and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and also to pay Rs.10,000/- towards gross deficiency of service.

 1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that  he has purchased a  Hero Honda CD Dawn Motor Cycle after obtaining loan for Rs.16,000/- from the opposite party and entered into  hypothecation cum loan agreement.    Further the complainant state that as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.791/- as EMI for 24 months from March 2004 and issued post dated cheques.  The complainant arranged payment of EMI regularly without any default.    The complainant also state that he addressed a letter to the opposite party on 3.10.2005 stating that he is ready and willing to pay the entire loan amount in one lump sum of Rs.5537/-.  Further the complainant state that the opposite party bank without reference to the request of the complainant issued a letter dated 18.12.2005 calling upon the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.1588/- alleged to be due.     In the mean time the opposite party sent collection staff as goondass.   The complainant state that he paid the said amount of Rs.5537/- on 9.3.2006 which was duly received by the opposite party.  Even after the payment of entire amount the opposite party failed and neglected to return the cheques, and the vehicle records like original R.C. book,  no objection certificate with Form 35.  Even after repeated demands and requests the opposite party failed and neglected to return the said cheques.    As such the act of the opposite parties clearly amounts to gross deficiency in service and thereby caused harassment, mental agony  and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

3. The brief averments in Written Version of  the opposite party    are as follows:

        The opposite party denies each and every allegation except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite party submit that the complainant obtained loan from the opposite party bank for the purchase of Hero Honda CD Dawn bearing Registration No.TN 05 L 5149.   The complainant had entered into a Hypothecation cum loan agreement and availed a sum of Rs.16,000/- for the purchase of the said vehicle.   The opposite party also state that  as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the complainant  has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.791/- per month for 24 months and issued post dated cheques towards monthly EMIs.    The complainant availed a loan of Rs.14,709/- is false and it is also equally  false to state that the loan has to be paid in 23 installment, the loan has to be repaid with interest in 24 months so that the EMI is fixed and calculated as Rs.791/- p.m.  The total amount to be repaid by the complainant is Rs.18,984/- and not as Rs.18,193/- as stated in the complaint.    Further the break up for principal and interest calculated by the complainant is wrong.    Further the opposite party also state that from the date of agreement to 15.10.2005 the cheque issued by the complainant were bounced 7 times hence as per hypothecation agreement the complainant is liable to pay Rs.400/- in case of every cheque bounce.      Therefore the opposite party bank send their collection staff to meet the complainant at his residence to call upon him for settlement.   The same cannot be construed by the complainant as goondass and henchmen, if he has really have an intention to settle the account he would have approach the opposite party bank in person for settlement instead of sending numerous frivolous correspondence.   Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant had filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A22 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties  filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 marked on the side of the opposite party.  

5.   The points for the consideration is: 

1) Whether the complainant is entitled to get return of seven cheques along with original RC book and other documents related to Hero Honda CD Dawn Motor Cycle bearing registration No.TN  05 L 5149 with no due certificate as prayed for ?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service with cost as prayed for ?

 

6. POINTS 1 & 2 :

        Both  parties and counsel  has not turned up to advance any oral argument for long time after filing written arguments.   The complainant pleaded in the complaint and stated in the written arguments that he has purchased a  Hero Honda CD Dawn Motor Cycle after obtaining loan for Rs.16,000/- from the opposite party and entered into a hypothecation cum loan agreement Ex.B1.   As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.791/- as EMI for 24 months from March 2004 and issued post dated cheques.  The complainant arranged payment of EMI regularly without any default.   In the mean time the complainant addressed a letter to the opposite party on 3.10.2005 stating that he is ready and willing to pay the entire loan amount in one lump sum of Rs.5537/-.    In the mean time the opposite party sent collection staff as goondass.  The complainant paid the said amount of Rs.5537/- along with reply notice Ex.A17 on 9.3.2006 which was duly received by the opposite party.  The further the contention of the complainant is that the claim of Rs.2800/- towards cheques bounced charges and Rs.830/- towards penalty  by the opposite party never arise in this case because the complainant is entitled to pay the EMIs till  April 2006.  But the complainant paid the entire amount on 9.3.2006.   Similarly the opposite party is not entitled to claim any amount towards penal interest as Rs.833/-.  On the other hand the opposite party is liable to pay compensation for sending collection agents as goondass under the guise of launchingof cheque.  The complainant further contended that even after the payment of entire amount the opposite party failed and neglected to return the unused cheques and bounced cheque, and the vehicle records like original R.C. book Hypothecation agreement duly cancelled and no objection certificate with Form 35.  Even after repeated demands and requests the opposite party failed and neglected to return the said cheques resulting that the Motor cycle is not in a Marketable condition.   The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service. 

7.     The contention of the opposite party is that admittedly the complainant availed loan for purchasing a  Hero Honda CD Dawn Motor cycle  bearing registration No.TN 05 L 5149.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that he has sanctioned a sum of Rs.16,000/- towards loan but not Rs.14,709/- as per Ex.B1 hypothecation agreement.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that as per the terms and conditions the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.791/- p.m. for 24 months and issued post dated cheque is admitted.  It is also admitted that the complainant was regularly paying the EMI resulting 7 cheques bounced.   But on a careful perusal of Ex.B2 there is no such endorsement of such dishonor of cheques.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.5537/- on 9.3.2006 towards the entire EMI.  But the complainant failed to pay the cheque bounced chargers of Rs.2800/-.  But on careful perusal of Ex.B2 cheques  there is no endorsement of such dishonour.   There is no cheque return memo also. Showing the reason for cheque bounce.   Further the opposite party is claiming a sum of Rs.833/- towards penal interest.  But the opposite party failed and neglected to issue the statement of account and percentage of interest.   The opposite party in its written version para-9 admitted that they have send collection staff not goondass.   As per decision reported in

CDJ 2009 MHC 4295

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

W.P.(MD)No.1773 of 2009 & M.P.(MD) NO.1 of 2009

A. Moses

..Vs..

The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Tirunelveli

Held that

The Respondent bank is bound to act as per the directions and guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time.   The practice adopted by the respondent bank in hiring recovery agents and deputing musclemen to seize the vehicles were deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd., ..Vs.. Prakash Karur reported in 2007 (2) SCC 711 – The respondent  bank being the appellant in the Prakash Kaur’s case cited supra, must take note of the strong observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of recovery, while taking steps to proceed against the hypothecated vehicle involved in the present writ petition and their action should be in accordance with the contract entered into between the parties and it should also be in accordance with the procedure recognized by law – It is needless to mention that recovery through musclemen giving them  the title “Recovery Agents” is not permitted by law. “

 

Further the contention of the opposite party is that the returned cheques and other records arise only after paying the entire amount.  Similarly the claim of compensation towards mental agony and deficiency of service never arise.   But it is very clear from the records that the complainant  paid the entire amount by way of D.D. before one month.   Equally for no reason the opposite party sent collection staff of unknown persons.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party is liable to return the  7 unused cheque leaves, original R.C. book, Form-35 and other documents and also compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and cost of Rs.5,000/- and the points are answered accordingly.

        In the result the complaint is allowed in part.    The opposite party is liable to return the  7 unused cheque leaves, original R.C. book, Form-35 and other documents and also compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

        The above  amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.       

  Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  1^st  day  of  September  2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1 -  1.6.2004  - Copy of Statement of account.

Ex.A2- 30.7.2004  - Copy of Statement of account.

Ex.A3- 15.10.2005         - Copy of letter sent by the complainant.

Ex.A4-         -       - Copy of Ack. card.

Ex.A5- 22.12.2005         - Copy of letter sent by the complainant.

Ex.A6-         -       - Copy of Ack. Card.

Ex.A7- 31.12.2005         - Copy of letter sent by the complainant.

Ex.A8-         -       - Copy of Ack. Card.

Ex.A9- 19.1.2006  - Copy of letter sent by the complainant.

Ex.A10-       -       - Copy of Ack. Card.

Ex.A11- 31.1.2006         - Copy of Petition filed before legal service authority.

Ex.A12- 7.2.2006  - Copy of telegraph receipt.

Ex.A13- 8.2.2006  - Copy of summon issued to the opposite party.

Ex.A14- 17.2.2006         - Copy of notice issued by party bank.

Ex.A15- 24.2.2006         - Copy of reply sent by the complainant.

Ex.A16- 4.3.2006  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A17- 9.3.32006         - Copy of reply notice.

Ex.A18- 20.3.3006         - Copy of rejoinder issued by the opposite party.

Ex.A19- 3.10.2005         - Copy of letter of the opposite party.

Ex.A20- 8.12.2005         - Copy of letter of the opposite party.

Ex.A21- 17.12.2005-Copy of letter of the opposite party.

Ex.A22- 9.1.2006  - Copy of notice issued by the opposite party.

Opposite party’s side document: -  

Ex.B1-  8.4.2004      - Copy of Hypothecation agreement.

Ex.B2- 15.10.2005 to- Copy of Returned cheques.

           15.4.2006

 

Ex.B3- 2.8.2006       - Copy of Statement of account of the complainant.

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.