BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.375 of 2015

Date of Instt. 01.09.2015

Date of Decision : 06.09.2016

Tejinder Kaur wife of Dr.Gurdeep Singh R/o 78-Golden Avenue, Phase-I, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

Chief Manager, Axis Bank Limited, RAC Branch, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Neeraj Luthra Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Vikas Sood Adv., counsel for the opposite party.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of 'The Consumer Protection Act' against the opposite party (hereinafter called as OP) on the averments that the complainant availed housing loan facility from OP bank to the tune of Rs.70 Lakhs. The loan amount is being paid by the complainant to the OP bank in monthly installment of Rs.39,808/-. The complainant submitted that he has been regularly paying the installments without any default/delay. On 13.4.2015, the complainant received a message on her mobile phone from OP bank that her home loan EMIs due as on 10.4.2015 for Rs.3,34,967/-, has been bounced, please check and arrange for the necessary payments at the earlier. The complainant then immediately contacted the OP on 13.4.2015 and 15.4.2015 through email but the officials of the OP bank did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant submitted that she had been regularly paying all the installments without any delay/ default. The allegations of the OP that her installments for Rs.3,34,967/- has bounced which cause great hardship and mental pain to the complainant and the OP did not rectify this mistake/ illegally demand despite the request of the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OP to pay Rs.5 Lakhs alongwith interest @ 18% per annum for defamation, mental tension, harassment suffered by her. She has also claimed litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed a written reply, pleaded that earlier inadvertently, the EMI amount mentioned in the SMS to the complainant, was not as per the actual EMI. The OP has already explained the circumstances to the complainant. The complainant agreed with the contention of the OP, she closed that loan account after paying the entire amount. The complainant again applied for financial assistance in a new Mode to the OP. So, this complaint is not maintainable. Rather there is no dispute or grudge between the parties. OP submitted that the complainant did not suffer any mental agony of harassment.

3. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed her evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Ex.O-A alongwith copy of document Ex.O-1 and closed evidence.

5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that the complainant availed housing loan facility from OP bank to the tune of Rs.70 Lakhs. The loan amount is being paid by the complainant to the OP bank in monthly installment of Rs.39,808/-. The complainant submitted that he has been regularly paying the installments without any default/delay. On 13.4.2015, the complainant received a message on her mobile phone from OP bank that her home loan EMIs due as on 10.4.2015 for Rs.3,34,967/-, has been bounced, please check and arrange for the necessary payments at the earlier. The complainant then immediately contacted the OP on 13.4.2015 and 15.4.2015 through email but the officials of the OP bank did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant submitted that she had been regularly paying all the installments without any delay/ default. So, the allegations of the OP that her installments for Rs.3,34,967/- has bounced which cause great hardship and mental pain to the complainant and the OP did not rectify this mistake/ illegally demand despite the request of the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the OP is that earlier inadvertently, the EMI amount mentioned in the SMS to the complainant, was not as per the actual EMI. The OP has already explained the circumstances to the complainant. The complainant agreed with the contention of the OP, she closed that loan account after paying the entire amount. Not only this, the complainant again applied for financial assistance in a new Mode to the OP. So, this complaint is not maintainable. Rather there is no dispute or grudge between the parties. Learned counsel for the OP submitted that the complainant did not suffer any mental agony of harassment. So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP qua the complainant.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant availed housing loan facility to the tune of Rs.70 Lakhs from the OP and the complainant has been paying monthly installment (EMI) of Rs.39808/- to the OP bank regularly. On 13.4.2015, the complainant received message Ex.C3 on her mobile phone from OP bank that her home loan EMI due as on 10.4.2015 for Rs.3,34,967/- has been bounced, please check and arrange for necessary payment at the earlier. No only this, the OP has also deducted a sum of Rs.562/- as cheque bouncing charges and debited the same to the account of the complainant as per statement of account of the complainant Ex.C1. The complainant was shocked to see that the amount of her EMI was mentioned by OP bank as Rs.3,34,967/-, whereas EMI was of Rs.39808/- only. Further more, the OP charged the cheque bouncing charges Rs.562/- and debited the same to the account of the complainant. The complainant approached the OP through emails Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 raising her protest that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.6 Lakhs in advance to the OP with the request to decrease her EMI of Rs.39,808/- but the OP rather raised her EMI to Rs.3,34,967/- and no one bothered to solve this created problem. However, later on the OP Head when the OP bank admitted their fault and replied to the complainant vide Ex.C2 that due to some technical issue, the EMI of the complainant was increased to Rs.3,34,967/- per month, as a result of which the ECS scheduled to be presented for April 2015 got bounced. They have initiated the process for rectification of the same and will also be waiving off the bounce charges levied on the account of the complainant. But OP did not waive the cheque bouncing charges of Rs.562/- debited to the account of the complainant on 10.4.2015. Therefore, the complainant was not satisfied with the services of the OP. She deposited the entire balance amount with the OP bank and closed her loan account but even at the time of closing the account, the OP did not waive the cheque bouncing charges of Rs.562/- illegally debited to the account of the complainant. All this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP qua the complainant which resulted into harassment and mental agony to the complainant. Therefore, the OP is liable to refund this amount of Rs.562/- to the complainant and to pay compensation.

9. Consequently, we partly allow the complaint with cost and the OP is directed to refund this amount Rs.562/- to the complainant. The OP is also directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- alongwith Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost, under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

06.09.2016 Member President