Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/191/2018

S.Alangaram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Centurion Bank of Punjab,Manager - Opp.Party(s)

N.Siva kumar

13 May 2022

ORDER

                                                                     Complaint presented on :29.07.2008                                                                       Date of disposal            :08.06.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

                PRESENT : THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                          :PRESIDENT

                                      TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                         : MEMBER-I

                              THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA.,   :MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.191/2018

 

DATED WEDNESDAY THE 08^th  DAY OF JUNE 2022

                                

S.Alangaram,

S/oLate.Swakeen,

Old No.69, New No.14, Arathoon Road,

Royapuram, Chennai-600 013.

 

                                                                                     …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

HDFC Bank Limited.,

Rep by its Manager

8-B, Raja Annamalai Building,

No.72, Marshalls Road, Egmore,

Chennai-600 008.

(Cause Title is amended as per order C.M.P.NO.29/2022 dated:13.05.2022)

 

.....Opposite Party

Counsel for Complainant                          : M/s.N.Sivakumar

 

Counsel for  opposite party                        : Mr.T.K.M.Saikrishnan &

                                                                  Mrs.N.Premalathe

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L., PRESIDENT :

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the harassment, loss of reputation, severe mental agony and pecuniary losses incurred due to the opposite party deficiency of service and direct the opposite party to return the original documents pertaining to the BAJAJ CT-100 motor bike bearing Registration No. TN 20 AV 6008 and NOC to the complainant.

This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No.311/2008.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. and taken on file as C.C. No.191/2018.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant stated that he is the owner of the BAJAJ CT-100 motor bike bearing Registration No. TN 20 AV 6008 and the opposite party bank sanctioned a sum of Rs.18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Thousand Only) as the Two wheeler loan for the above mentioned bike vide the Loan Agreement No.PK0403 dated:22.08.2006 and the complainant’s Loan Account Number was 2006PK0403561.  The complainant stated that as per the conditions of the loan agreement, the EMI was Rs.1132/- per month for the period of 17 months and the complainant also paid one month advance EMI at the time of sanctioning of the above loan and he had to pay the remaining installments for the period of 16 months, the first due date was on 10.10.2006 and the last due on 10.01.2008. The complainant stated that he was having savings account at ICICI bank Redhills branch and he agreed to pay the above installments through his bank vide ECS in order to avoid risks in payment of above installments to the opposite party bank. The complainant stated that as per the agreement the complainant paid EMI for the month of October-2006 through ECS and thereafter due to default on the part of the opposite party bank, it’s authorities had failed to send the cheque for clearance for the month of November 2006 and the opposite party collection agent informed their fault to the complainant and the complainant also called upon the opposite party bank agent Mr.M.Kannan to his place on 11.12.2006 and he paid EMI a sum of Rs.1132/- for the month of Nov-2006 to the opposite party agent by cash and issued payment receipt No.1878592 dated:11.12.2006. The complainant paid the entire EMI’s and he paid the last EMI on 10.01.2008 and his entire due amounts had been fully paid off and there is no outstanding due to the opposite party.  The complainant demanded the opposite party bank to return the documents and NOC for the above mentioned loan account. The complainant stated that he has received the communication dated:07.03.2008 from the opposite party bank in which stated that there was a cheque for the amount of Rs.1132/- which was dishonored from the complainant’s bank account and called upon him to repay the same without stating the fact that which month due was outstanding.  Immediately the complainant communicated to the opposite party bank  and stated that the entire dues was paid off. The complainant stated that out of 17 EMIs, since he had paid the advance EMI for the period of the one month at the time sanctioning of above mentioned loan account and he paid off the remaining 16 months EMI as stated in the complaint. Totally 17 installments have been paid by the complainant and there is no outstanding due from the complainant to the opposite party bank. The complainant submitted that opposite party bank retained one Cheque for which the complainant had paid the same by cash for the month November 2006 which was not presented by the opposite bank. Complainant issued lawyer’s notice dated 24.03.2008. Complainant stated that opposite party bank  is liable to be pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.

2.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party submitted that the agreement period was from 10.10.2006 to 10.01.2008. The actual agreement period was from 10.10.2006 to 10.02.2008 as found from the statement of accounts of the complainant and the said period shall cover a period of 17 months comprising of 17 installments. Further submitted that the complainant had opted for the ECS clearance facility and as such as the opposite party was realizing their monthly EMI dues through ECS facility, for the month of  October 2006 EMI was realized, for the month of Nov 2006 ECS request was sent by the opposite party but the request was denied by the banker of the complainant and the cheque for the month of Nov 2006 was not honored,  so the complainant was directly approached and received money for the due to be paid for November 2006 and the same is also debited his account on 11.12.2006. Last EMI date was only on 10.02.2008 and not on 10.01.2008, so the complainant had to pay EMI for the month of Feb-2008, but the said EMI was defaulted to be paid by the complainant and hence there was a demand notice sent from the opposite party to the complainant demanding the said EMI, so there is no fault of the opposite party is demanding the said money of Rs.1132/- which was due to be paid by the complainant to the opposite party for the month of February 2008. Opposite party submitted that there might be a fault in the calculation arrived at by the complainant. Further stated that the opposite party has not retained any cheque to be presented again and cause unnecessary harassment to the complainant.  Opposite party further submitted that the agreement period ended only with the month of February 2008 and not as claimed by the complainant in the month of January 2008. Opposite party further submitted that the complainant had wrongly concluded that the agreement period ended with the month of January 2008 instead of February 2008.It also becomes clear that the claim of the opposite party to pay the last installment due of Rs.1132/- is also proper.  The opposite party is not liable to the complainant for any deficiency in service or for any other claim.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part opposite party as alleged in the complaint. ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

The complainant filed proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to A7 were marked on his side.  The opposite party filed proof affidavit and Ex.B1 to B3 were marked on the opposite party side.

4. POINT NO :1 :-

          The complainant is owner of Bajaj of CT-100  and barrowed two wheeler loan of Rs.18,000/- by executing loan agreement with the opposite party on 22.08.2006 according to the complainant the 1^st EMI due date was on 10.10.2006 and last due date was on 10.01.2008 for the period of 17 months with EMI of Rs.1132/- per month .  It is contended by the complainant every month EMI was paid through ECS accordingly as per the complainant, he has paid 17 installments including the installment which was due for the month of Nov 2006 which was due the return of cheque for which the complainant paid by cash to the opposite party on 11.12.2006 therefore, the complainant contended that even after payment of entire loan amount the opposite party  failed to return the original documents of the two wheeler and because of the deficiency in service by the opposite party the complainant  undergone harassment and loss of reputation and hence claimed Rs. 2 lacks as compensation and also return of documents.

          5. But, on the other hand the opposite party contended that the loan agreement period was from 10.10.2006 to 10.02.2008 comprising 17 installments and according to opposite party the cheque for the month of Nov-2006 was dishonored and hence the complainant was directly approached the money was paid in cash on 11.12.2006 and the complainant failed to pay EMI for the month of Feb-2008 of Rs.1132/- for which the complainant is liable to pay  penal charges  and therefore according to the opposite party the loan amount was not fully discharged by the complainant and hence contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part.

          6. The complainant relied on Ex.A2 and contended that the last due date of EMI was 10.01.2008 but as per the loan agreement which is marked as Ex.B1 the loan amount has to be repaid in 18 monthly installments which should be paid before 10^th of every month.  The loan amount is Rs.18,000/- as per Ex.B1 schedule-1 at page No.8 it is found  that the 1^st EMI due date was 10.09.2006 and last EMI due date was 10.01.2008 and agreement tenure is 18 months it is found from Ex.B3 statement of account that the amount paid on 10.10.2006 was taken for the amount due for the 1^st installment in Sep-2006 further a sum of Rs.400/- was debited on 20.11.2006 as cheque bouncing charges.  As per the Ex.B3 statement of account on 31.07.2015 a sum of Rs.3988/- is shown as balance amount payable by the complainant which included the over due charges due to non-payment of the Feb-2008 EMI of Rs.1132/- further it is found from Ex.B3 out of two cheques which were bounced Rs.1132/- was paid by way of cash on 11.12.2006, but on the other hand it is found that the last EMI for the month Feb-2008 was not paid by the complainant but, the complainant has mistakenly calculated and alleged that entire loan amount was repaid by him which seems to be incorrect.  Since, the EMI for the month of Feb-2008 is due along with overdue charges and hence the opposite party has issued a letter on 07.03.2008 which is marked as Ex.A4 to the complainant stating that Rs.1132/- is outstanding and requested the complainant and pay the same, even as per Ex.B3 page no.16 the last installment due date is shown as 10.02.2008 therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for not returning the documents of the two wheeler and issuing NOC, since the loan amount was not fully repaid by the complainant.  Point no 1 answered accordingly.

7. Point No.2.

          Based on findings given to point no.1  it is found that the complainant failed to prove the alleged deficiency in service by the opposite party and hence the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint and point No.2 is  answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 08^th  day of  June 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1		R.C.Book
Ex.A2	14.09.2006	Confirmation letter from the opposite party
Ex.A3	11.12.2006	Payment receipt
Ex.A4	07.03.2008	Letter from the opposite party
Ex.A5	13.03.2008	Bank statement
Ex.A6	24.03.2008	Legal notice to the opposite party
Ex.A7	26.03.2008	Ack due card

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B1	18.08.2006	Loan Agreement
Ex.B2	18.08.2006	Promissory Note
Ex.B3	26.08.2015	Statement of Account

 

 

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT