DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Complaint Case No: 175 of 2010]

                                                          Date of Institution : 22.03.2010

                                                            Date of Decision   : 07.04.2011

Sh. S. S. Udbi resident of House No.410/1, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh.

                                                                   ---Complainant.

V E R S U S

1.      Citi Bank Limited, Citicorp Credit Services India Limited, A-      21/18, Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi – 110 028     through its Managing Director.

2.      Citi Bank Limited, Branch Sector 35, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:   SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA        PRESIDENT

                SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI     MEMBER

                SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA            MEMBER

Argued By:Sh. Anil K. Bhai, Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh. Maninder Singh, Advocate proxy for the OPs.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. S. S. Udbi has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for the following reliefs:-

i)                   To issue NOC to the complainant as he has already cleared his loan amount.

ii)                 To pay an amount of Rs.5 Lacs as compensation for harassment, inconvenience and mental agony.

iii)              To pay costs of litigation.

2.                In brief the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Ambassador Car (Diesel). He took a loan of Rs.1,56,300/- from OPs for purchasing the said car. The said loan was to be repaid in 60 monthly equated installments of Rs.4,145/- each. The car mentioned above was hypothecated with the OPs as security of the said loan. It is averred that the complainant was paying the installments regularly without any fault through cheques, which were never dishonoured. The complainant received a letter dated 16.5.1995 from the OPs intimating him that cheque for Rs.4,145/- for the month of May, 1996 has been misplaced by them. So, the said amount was paid by the complainant in cash. Despite that, on 23.9.1996, the complainant received a notice through Suri & Company Advocate for non payment of the said cheque amount, which was totally wrong. As per the complainant, he cleared his loan amount on 30.12.2000 and a full and final receipt was also issued to him by Ms. Shashi Sethi, Manager Customer Assistant. The complainant then requested the OPs vide letter dated 20.6.2001 and 17.6.2002 to issue him the NOC in this regard but no heed was paid to his request. As per the complainant, despite full and final settlement of his loan account, the OPs are still demanding the aforesaid said amount and have also written number of letters dated 21.12.2006, 26.4.2007 and 7.1.2008, which were duly replied by him vide letters dated 18.1.2007, 24.5.2007 and 15.1.2008. It is next averred that the complainant also made number of personal visits to the OPs but to no avail. Even, the name of the complainant was shown in the defaulters list of CIBL, copy of which was received by him on 6.4.2010, which also caused loss to image and reputation of the complainant. The complainant served a legal notice dated 15.6.2009 upon the OPs and asked for the issuing of the NOC but all gone in vain. Alleging the aforesaid acts of OPs as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, the present complaint was filed by the complainant seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                In the reply filed by the OP, the factum of availing auto loan of Rs.1,56,300/- and same to be repaid in 60 equal monthly installments of Rs.4,145/- has been admitted. It is pleaded that the complainant was irregular in paying the equal monthly installments as at various instances, the cheques were dishonoured due to which cheque bouncing charges and penalty charges were imposed upon the complainant as per the statement of account (Annexure A). It is next pleaded that in a normal course, the NOC is issued to the customer only when the whole amount due from the customer is paid but the complainant was irregular in paying the said installments. OPs have specifically denied of having issued any receipt of full and final payment. OPs also sent a notice to the complainant as per the regular banking practice for clearing his outstanding dues. As regards the CIBIL list, OPs submitted that they followed the prescribed procedure in forwarding the credit updates of every customer to the CIBIL and OP has no control over the same. It is next asserted that OPs also sent a legal notice to the complainant on 7.1.2008 for clearing his outstanding amount. As per the OPs, an amount of Rs.51,278.52 was outstanding against the loan account of the complainant. However, as per the OPs, as a goodwill gesture, they have reversed the outstanding balance and waived off the cheque bouncing charges and penal interest charges. According to OPs, NOC was also issued to the complainant on 5.8.2010. Thus according to OPs now the complainant is pursuing the complaint simply to extract money and to harass the OPs. So, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc and the written arguments submitted on behalf of the OPs.

5.                Admittedly, the complainant had paid all the EMIs as per the scheme of Repayment Schedule, which has been duly acknowledged by the OPs. Further, the penalty and other charges have been waived off by the OPs and even the ‘No Objection Certificate’ has been issued. In these circumstances, nothing is outstanding against the complainant. There is on record a letter dated 29.12.2000 written by the OP Bank to the complainant wherein the OP while informing the complainant about the outstanding dues wrote as under: -

“This is for your kind information that as on date, your one installment is outstanding i.e. for Rs.4145 for the month of June 96. Post dated cheque for June 96 issued to CITI Bank NA has been misplaced in transaction and we shall not claim any payment against this cheque in future. Your entire penal interest is waived off. You are requested to pay your pending one installment by cash/DD.”

Immediately upon receipt of this letter, the complainant approached the OP Bank next day and vide Receipt dated 30.12.2000 (Annexure C-2), he deposited the outstanding one installment of Rs.4,145/- as intimated to him by the OPs. Thus, nothing remained outstanding against him after payment of this amount on 30.12.2000 and OPs were required to give him the ‘No Objection Certificate’ on 30.12.2000 itself. However, the OPs took ten years in issuing the ‘No Objection Certificate’ although no dues were payable by the complainant during this period, which was finally issued on 3.7.2010 and even the name of the complainant was sent to the CIBIL showing him to be a defaulter causing him a lot of harassment and loss of honour. This is a serious deficiency on the part of the OPs.

6.             In these circumstances, the complaint is allowed and it is ordered that OPs shall pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for mental agony and harassment and also pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses. The OPs shall also intimate the CIBIL about the recovery of the outstanding amount from the complainant in full with a request to delete the name of the complainant from the list of defaulters.

7.                This order be complied with by OPs jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e.22.3.2010 till actual payment besides Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation as well 0.complying with the rest of the order.

8.                Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

7^th April 2011.

Sd/-

 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Ad/-

C.C.No.175 of   2010

PRESENT: None.

                                                          ---

                   Arguments heard on 04.04.2011. The case was reserved for orders. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint is allowed. After compliance file be consigned.

Announced.

07.04.2011          Member              President             Member