Delhi

North East

CC/495/2015

Ravinder Mandal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandalm Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Apr 2018

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.495/2015

 

In the matter of:

 

	Ravinder Mandal S/o Shri Bhopal Mandal R/o B-8/11 MCD Leprosy Colony Tahirpur, Shahdara Delhi-110032.	Complainant
	Versus
1         2	M/s. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd. Head Office : Dear House No.2,                      N.S.C. Bose Road, Parrys, Chennai 600 001   Also at : Plot No. 1, 1st Floor, Near Metro Pillar No. 81, Main 6, Pusa Road, Karol Bagh,             New Delhi 110 005.	Opposite Parties

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	01.01.2016
	RESERVED FOR ORDER:	06.04.2018
	DATE OF DECISION:	10.04.2018

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

 

 

 

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

ORDER

1. The case of the complainant is that he had taken a loan of Rs. 2,45,000/- from OP on 25.03.2015 for purchasing Maruti Eeco vehicle on monthly installments which was fixed @ of Rs. 8,375/- payable from the period 1.5.2015 to 1.4.2018. The first installment was paid on 1.5.2015 through bank and 2^nd installment on 10.06.2015 by cheque. The 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th, 7^th & 8^th installments were paid by complainant on 10.07.15, 06.08.15, 03.09.15, 07.10.15, 31.10.15 & 06.11.15 respectively through cheques issued by the complainant in favour of OP. The complainant has submitted that he had paid his 3^rd installment on 10.07.2015 through Mr. Varun officer of OP. Complainant has also alleged that the above official didn’t present the cheque of the complainant to the bank for encashment for next ten days. When there was no message from the bank regarding debit of EMI, the complainant visited OP office on 24.07.2015 and here he was told that a penalty of Rs. 101/- has been levied on complainant for late deposit of cheque. The complainant had to paid Rs. 101/- as penalty.  The complainant has informed that his account has not been debited with said amount / EMI of Rs. 8,375/- but the OP informed him otherwise that the EMI has been paid to OP from the complainant’s account. It is further stated by the complainant when he had asked the OP whether he can withdraw the amount from his account, he was told that it is for the complainant to spend his money as he wished to. It has been stated further by the complainant that he had visited his bank on 10.11.2015 to take out his statement of account and he found that it didn’t reflect the entry pertaining to July 2015 EMI debit / cheque. Thereafter, he was told by OP in its office that a penalty of Rs. 2,172/- has been imposed on him against cheque bounce. It is added further that OP official told the complainant the cheque                 no. 235365 dated 10.07.2015 has not yet been deposited in the bank and OP is levying a penalty of Rs. 2,172/- due to which the complainant is facing financial as well as mental hardship. Therefore, vide the present complaint it has been prayed by the complainant that the directions be issued to OP bank to give detailed statement/explanation of the cheque dated 10.07.2015 given by complainant to Mr. Varun of the OP. In addition, Rs. 50,000/- be granted to him as compensation payable by OP for mental agony suffered by complainant alongwith an amount of Rs. 8,000/- as litigation charges. The complainant has attached copies of installments paid by him to OP for the period June to November 2015. Further, a copy of bank a/c statement for the period of 1.5.2015 to 16.07.2015 showing the above statement paid on 11.07.2015 has been shown with breakup of Rs.  8,274 + 101. The complainant also submitted the payment receipt of Rs. 101/- paid by him in cash to OP on 24.07.2015.  A copy of the account statement upto 14.12.2015 at the office of the OP has also been submitted which shows that Rs. 500/- has been charged as cheque bouncing charges in July due to drawer signature difference.
2. Notice was issued to the OP on two different addresses one at Chennai, and the other at Karol Bagh, New Delhi on 6.1.2016 for appearance on 12.02.2016. Both the notices were delivered to different addresses of OP on 12.01.2016 and 11.01.2016. The written statement was filed by the OP wherein it was stated that only a sum of Rs. 500/- has been charged on the complainant for dishonor of cheque instead of Rs. 2,172/- as alleged by complainant. Further, it has been stated that the complainant has to pay the EMI on 1^st day of each English calendar month but the complainant failed and neglected timely payment of the EMIs on due dates as per the terms of the agreement and this fact is also established from the receipts filed by complainant himself. Hence, the delay in payment has been charged as overdue charges as per the terms of the agreement between the parties. Further, it has been stated, that the cheque issued on 10^th July 2015 was deposited by the OP to his banker but the same got dishonored and the same is clearly reflected in the statement of account filed by the complainant. The OP further stated that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 101/- on 11.07.2015 and not on 24.07.2015 as stated by complainant which fact is reflected in the receipt itself. The OP denied having charged Rs. 2,172/- from complainant as cheque bouncing charges and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In his rejoinder to the above written statement of OP, the complainant has stated that he was informed that his cheque no. 235365 dated 10.07.2015 was passed on 16.07.2015 by Mr. Harsh Taneja who is Branch Manager of OP at Azad Pur, Delhi. It has been further stated by the complainant, that the complainant had shown him the message received on his mobile that the amount of the cheque has not been deducted from his account since the balance in his account on 20.07.2015 was Rs. 8,865.36p and on 27.07.2015, it was Rs. 9,063.04p and no deduction of 8,375/- i.e. (EMI amount) is being reflected in his account. Mr. Harsh Taneja still assured the complainant that amount in complainant’s account is Rs. 194/- as against Rs. 9,063/- which was seen by complainant himself and asked him not to worry as the amount of his installment had already been received by OP. Complainant was further told by Mr. Harsh Taneja that the complainant had to only deposit Rs. 101/- on the cash counter as it is the balance due from him which the complainant duly deposited. The complainant further stated that he had again visited the office of OP to hand over the cheque of next month installment and  complainant objected to the date 30.07.2015 filled thereon by Harsh Taneja and asked him to correct the date on cheque as 1.8.2015 instead of 30.07.2015 since the installment pertains to next month. He had further added that he was disappointed from unsatisfactory reply from the OP and he was doubtful that his cheque might be misused by somebody and as such on 24.07.2015 at 03:15 p.m., he withdrew an amount of Rs. 2,000/- from ATM and thereafter, immediately at 03:16 p.m. he withdrew the amount of Rs. 6,800/-. He further submitted that an amount of Rs. 114/- was deducted from his account on 4.8.2015 for verification of signature. The complainant further submitted that Rs. 2,172/- was deducted / charged by OP from him against OD charages paid charges and cheque bouncing charges cumulatively. Complainant further submitted that as per the statement dated 24.07.2015, an amount of             Rs. 66,899/- were received in his account an after the deposit of Rs. 101/- the total payment made by him amounted to Rs. 67,000/-. Therefore, the complainant posed a question to OP when his cheque dated 10.07.2015 was dishonoured by the Bank, why an amount of Rs. 500/- as cheque bouncing charges were not levied. He had further desired to know that when Rs. 500/- are to be charged from him as cheque bouncing charges, as to why OD charges of Rs. 1,546/- and Rs. 126/- have been shown separately in his statement and if the OP had given correct statement on 24.07.2015, he would not have suffered the disappointment and would not have gone to the consumer forum. He has further alleged that the OP is misleading this Consumer Forum.
4. Complainant further stated that he had twice filled up the ECS form first at the loan sanction and then again on 4.8.15 for auto debit of EMIs for timely clearance / payment of loan but the OP failed to activate the ECS service qua the complainant despite signature verification for which              Rs. 114/- was debited from the account of  complainant. complainant has further rebutted the defence of OP by stating that he had already deposited Rs. 8,000/- in his account with OP on 29.06.2015 before submitting July installment / EMI cheque of 8,375/- then there was no reason for the same getting dishonoured. The OP did not file any statement for 10.07.2015 as to why Rs. 101/- was not reflecting in bank statement given to complainant by OP on 24.07.2015 and by what mode was same deposited since the only entry on 11.07.2015 pertains to dishonoured cheque no. 235365 as per version of OP. Complainant further submitted that vide activation of SMS service, he was receiving all information about his bank account and therefore, on 20.07.15 and 27.07.15 he had messaged to OP if he could withdraw money from his account to which OP readily allowed him to do so. The Complainant further stated that he had paid Rs. 67,000/- from his account to OP on 24.07.2015 and in addition to 101/- he had paid                    Rs. 66,899/- to OP despite which his July 2015 EMI cheque got dishonoured and cheque bouncing charges were levied. Statement dated 14.12.2015 showing charges on 31.07.2015 and 30.09.2015 as cheque bouncing which is a conspiracy and manipulation in bank statement made by OP. Complainant further alleged that the same cheque has been presented multiple times by OP and OD charges of 1,546/-, 126/- and 500/- have been separately levied by OP on the complainant. Evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OP was submitted wherein it was mentioned that the complainant has to pay the EMI on first day of each English calendar month which he didn’t pay and as such overdue charges were levied. The points mentioned in its written statement were reiterated by the OP in his defence. 
5. The evidence submitted by complainant also reiterated the points mentioned in his complaint.
6. The written arguments were submitted by both the parties which reiterated the points made mentioned above.
7. We have gone through the oral arguments submitted by the complainant and also perused the documentary evidence submitted by the parties. We are of considered opinion  that the complainant is trying to club all charges levied by OP in the loan account of complainant under various heads for the purpose of seeking cumulative relief which cannot be entertained since it pertains to the ongoing loan agreement between the parties. Moreover, cheque No. 235365 given by the complainant to the OP towards July 2015 EMI was cleared on 11.07.2015 which was late from its due date and therefore charges of Rs. 101/- were levied by the OP. Further Rs. 500/-  were levied by the OP on the complainant towards cheque bouncing charges due to signature mismatch which was mistake of the complainant and cannot be “deficiency in service or fault” of the OP. Therefore  we opine that this is no case of deficiency in service on the part of OP because Rs. 500/- has been levied against the complainant as cheque bouncing charges on 10.07.2015 and Rs. 101/- have been charged from him for late payment  on 10.7.2015 instead of 1^st of every month. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed with no cost to either party.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
9. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on   10.04.2018)   

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member