Date of Filing : 28.03.2012
Date of Order : 18.02.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER I
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.117/2012
THURSDAY THIS 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016
Mr. Jammi Venkataramana,
No.22, Sambasivam Street,
T.Nagar,
Chennai 600 017. ..Complainant
..Vs..
The Manager,
Customer Care Ltd.,
CITI Bank, N.A
(i) Credit Cards Division and
(ii) Diners Club Card Division,
No.45, Tower Victoire,
G.N. Chetty Road, T.Nagar,
Chennai 600 017. ..Opposite parties
For the Complainant : M/s. M.S.Sundararajan & another
For the Opposite parties : M/s. S.Namasivayam & other
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite party to refund the total excess amount of Rs.34,649/- and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation with interest and cost of the complaint to the complainant.
ORDER
THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT
1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-
The Complainant has stated that he had a credit card facility with the opposite party’s bank and he has obtained complaint mentioned 3 loans in the month of June 2005, for Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.1,76,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- which are to be repayable in monthly installments of Rs.8503/- Rs.4988/- and Rs.567/- respectively and further stated that the complainant has remitted the above said monthly installments for the said loans regularly from June 2005 to July 2009 by which he has discharged the above said loans in the month of July 2009 itself. The opposite parties have collected different charges and enhanced interest instead of the agreed interest as such complainant has paid excess payments of Rs.24,377/- in respect of 1st loan and 2nd loan, and Rs.10,272/- in respect of 3rd loan and totally a sum of Rs.34649/- to the opposite parties. Despite of several demand made by the complainant the said amount was not returned to the complainant and alleging the opposite party has committed deficiency of service. As such the complainant has sought for a sum of refund of the total excess amount of Rs.34,649/- and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and cost of the complaint to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
Written Version of opposite parties are briefly as follows:
2. The opposite parties denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. The credit card facility as well as the said loan availed under the said facility by the complainant are all on agreeing the terms and conditions by the complainant. The Complainant has not repaid the entire loan and the EMI paid by the complainant were also irregular and the opposite party’s bank has then and there added necessary charges and interest and the penal interest for the default are all in accordance to the agreed terms and conditions by the complainant. The current outstanding in the card accounts are 4385 8790 1115 3024 (reissued card) Rs.86,184.19 and 367 06349779 009 – Rs.9796.92. Here it is pertinent to point out that the opposite parties as service gesture had reversed financial charges amounting to Rs.6804.28 on card ending 9009 and Rs,51769.26 on card ending 3024 though not obliged or liable to do as these were legitimate charges due from the complainant. The complaint is not maintainable and the complainant is a defaulter has not paid the entire complaint mentioned loan amount and due as stated above. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of Opposite parties are filed and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 series were marked on the side of the opposite parties.
4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?.
5. POINTS 1 to 3 : -
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, the written version filed by the opposite parties, proof affidavits filed by both parties and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 filed on the side of complainant and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 series filed on the side of opposite parties and considered both sides arguments.
6. Complainant has stated that he had a credit card facility with the opposite parties bank and he has obtained complaint mentioned 3 loans in the month of June 2005, for Rs.3,00,000/- Rs.1,76,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- which are to be repayable in monthly installments of Rs.8503/- Rs.4988/- and Rs.567/- respectively and further stated that the complainant has remitted the above said monthly installments for the said loans regularly from June 2005 to July 2009 by which he has discharged the above said loans in the month of July 2009 itself and have raised grievance against the opposite parties that the opposite parties have collected different charges and enhanced interest instead of the agreed interest as such complainant has paid excess payments of Rs.24,377/- in respect of 1st loan and 2nd loan, and Rs.10272, in respect of 3rd loan, totally a sum of Rs.34649/- to the opposite parties. Despite of several demand by the complainant the said amount was not returned to the complainant and alleging the opposite parties has committed deficiency of service and claiming of refund of the said amount with interest along with compensation against the opposite parties, this complaint is filed.
7. Whereas the opposite parties has raised objection stating that the credit card facility as well as the said loan availed under the said facility by the complainant are all on agreeing the terms and conditions by the complainant. The Complainant has not repaid the entire loan and the EMI paid by the complainant were also irregular and the opposite parties bank has then and there added necessary charges and interest and the penal interest for the default are all in accordance to the agreed terms and conditions by the complainant. As such, complainant as on date of filing the written version, the current outstanding in the card accounts are 4385 8790 1115 3024 (Reissued Card) – Rs.86,184.19 and 367 06349779 009 – Rs.9796.92. Here it is pertinent to point out that the opposite parties as service gesture had reversed financial charges amounting to Rs.6804.28 on card ending 9009 and Rs,51769.26 on card ending 3024 though not obliged or liable to do as these were legitimate charges due from the complainant. The complaint is not maintainable and the complainant is a defaulter has not paid the entire complaint mentioned loan amount and due has stated above, as such the complaint is to be dismissed.
8. The opposite parties has also filed the statement of account Ex.B2 in support of the said contention. The opposite parties has denied the complainant contention that the deficiency of service alleged and stated that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant is a defaulter as not paid the entire complaint mentioned loan amount and due as stated above, as such the complaint is to be dismissed.
9. It is pertinent to note that as per the statement of accounts filed on the side of the complainant as well as opposite parties as Exhibits before this forum, they reveals that the said complaint mentioned loan was availed by the complainant under the credit card facilities for the purpose of Pharmaceuticals business run by the complainant in the name of “Jami” Pharmaceuticals” as such the complaint mentioned dispute arised out of the said account maintained by the complainant with the opposite parties for the purpose of commercial purpose. Further, though it has not averred openly by the complainant in the complaint the documents on records filed on the side of complainant itself reveals the same. Further the complainant neither averred in the complaint that the said Pharmaceuticals business was carried out for his livelihood for the self employment purpose. Therefore we are of the considered view that this complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable under sec. 2(1) (d) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
10. Further though the complainant has contended that he has paid entire complaint mentioned loan amount in July 2009, with excess payment of Rs.34,649/- and the same was denied by the opposite parties and contended that the complainant is still due a sum of Rs.51,796.26 as on date of filing written version, it is the burden on the complainant to prove the contention that he has paid the entire loan amount and with alleged excess payment of Rs.34,649/-. Whereas the complainant has not filed any document or proof for the said contention. But on the other hand the opposite parties has filed statement of account as Ex.A2 as a proof for their contention that the complainant is due a sum of Rs.51,796.26. Therefore as contended by the opposite parties that the complainant is defaulter in payment of the loan amount to the opposite parties, as such the complainant is not considered to be a consumer, and this complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act 1986 is also considered to be not maintainable is also acceptable.
11. It is also pertinent to note that the complaint mentioned grievance raised by the complainant is in relation to the charges and interest charged for the relating to the period from availing of loan in the year 2005, and the dues pending till this date. As such it requires the verification of entire account and their calculation of interest etc., which were added then and there for the said period. Such nature of grievance cannot be dealt with by this Forum, constituted under Consumer Protection Act, since it requires volume of evidence in respect of charges added by the opposite parties in the account and the payment made by the complainant towards the loan amount as such complex issues involved for appreciation. Therefore we are of the considered view that on the said aspect also this complaint filed by the complainant before this forum is not maintainable.
12. As discussed above, we are of the considered view that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable, the complainant also miserable failed to prove the deficiency of service attributed against the opposite parties in the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are ordered to bear their own costs. Accordingly the points 1 and 2 are answered.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 18TH day of February 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents:
Ex.A1- - - Copy of Statement of account in respect of loan 1 & 2
Ex.A2- - - Copy of Statement of account in respect of loan No.3.
Ex.A3- 12.5.2008 - Copy of letter with enclosure.
Ex.A4- 31.8.2009 - Copy of letter with enclosure.
Ex.A5- 14.5.2011 - Copy of legal notice by counsel for complaints to
opposite party
Ex.A6- 30.5.2011 - Copy of reply by opposite party to the lawyer for
complainant.
Ex.A7- 29.10.2009 - Copy of Lok Adalat notice.
Ex.A8- - - Copy of statement of account
Ex.A9- - - Copy of Statement of account.
Opposite parties’ Exhibits:-
Ex.B1- - - Copy of Power of Attorney.
Ex.B2series - - Copy of Statement of accounts of credit card.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
