Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/102/2013

A.R.Anthony Soundara Rajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Citi Bank N.A - Opp.Party(s)

M/s Prakash Paul

02 Feb 2022

ORDER

                                                                                 Date of Complaint Filed: 12.03.2013

                                                                                                                                             Date of Reservation     : 04.01.2022

                                                                                                                                             Date of Order              : 02.02.2022

                                                                     

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

Present:                        Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.           : President

                                      Thiru. T. Vinodh Kumar, B.A., B.L.                  : Member

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.102/2013

WEDNESDAY, THE 2^nd DAY OF FEBURARY 2022

 

A.R. Anthony Soundara Rajan,

Old No.19, New No.2,

8^th Street, Nehru Colony,

Nanaganallur, Chennai – 600 061.                                                                                                .. Complainant                                              

..Versus..

 

1.Citi Bank N.A,

   Rep. by its Manager,

   No.164, Annasalai,

   Chennai – 600 002.                                                                                                                   .. 1^st Opposite party

 

2. Citi Bank N.A,

   Rep. by its Manager,

   Mail Room, No.2,

   Club House Road,

   Chennai – 600 002.                                                                                                                                     ..  2^nd Opposite party

******

Counsel for the complainant        : M/s. Prakash Paul

Counsel for the opposite parties   : M/s. S. Namasivayam

        On perusal of records and after having treated the written arguments of both  parties  as oral arguments  we delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A.,B.L.
 

1.      The complainant has filed this complaint as against the opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to refund the debit amount of R.56,052.35/- and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the physical strain and mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this complaint.
2.      The complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and on the side of the complainant, documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked. The complainant has not filed the written argument. The opposite party has submitted his version, proof affidavit and written arguments and on the side of the opposite party documents Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 are marked.

3.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

        The complainant with an intention to avail a loan from the Opposite party Bank and on assurance by the opposite parties, complainant had signed various papers shown by the executive of the opposite parties. The Executive also assured that they will sanction the loan amount within a week days. But they have not sanctioned the loan amount. But the opposite party found monthly instalments were debited from the complainant’s account and collected the loan amount by way of ECS. But the complainant had never availed the loan amount from the opposite party Bank. The Complainant had called for Banking personnel and informed the irregularity in debiting the instalment amounts from his Bank Account. Some people of the opposite party are informed that the loan sanction cheque is lying with them and had apologized for the error committed by them and informed the complainant that the cheque would be sent soon. But they have not sent the cheque. Without sanctioning loan the opposite party used to debit a sum of Rs.56,52.35/- from the complainant’s Bank Account on 67 instalments. Hence this complaint is filed.

4.        Written Version of the Opposite parties in Brief:-

        It is submitted that the complainant had booked a personal loan from his ready credit account in March 2007 through the Phone Banking Chanel. The draft for the loan amount was dispatched to his mailing address and the same was received by a member of his family. The complainant had signed up an ECS (Electronic Collecting System) mandate while applying for the loan for collection of loan repayment through EMIs (Equated Monthly Instalments). The EMIs for the loan was debited from Customers Fedreal Bank Account from April 2007. All the other allegations were denied by the opposite party. Hence requested to dismiss the same.

5.       The Points for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complaint is entitled to get reliefs as claimed in the complaint?

3.To what relief, the complaint is entitled to?

6.      Point No.1

        Ex.B2  is the statement of the Account of the Opposite party Bank. It could reveal that on 22.03.2007  DD was issued to the complainant for Rs.35,000/- . Thereafter each and every month the instalment amount was debited from 11.04.2007 to 31.07.2013. Further on 14.08.2013 principle reversal of Rs.35,000/- was entered in the increase column. As such on the same day interest charges reversal of Rs.27,525.63/- was entered in the increased column. On 16.08.2013 DD was issued for Rs.56,025/- in favour of the complainant and the same was entered in the decreased column. On 16.08.2013 interest was charged Rs.60/- from 01.08.2013 to 16.08.2013 and on the same day interest reversal of Rs.60/- was entered in the increased column and the balance is nil. Therefore on 16.08.2013 the entire loan amount was settled. But the above facts was not disclosed either by the complainant nor by the opposite parties in their pleadings.

7.     Therefore after filing of this complaint there was some compromise arrived between the parties concerned. It will not disclosed to this Commission. Hence we found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, point Nos 2 & 3 are answered.

        In the result this complaint is dismissed. No cost.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on this  the  02^nd day of February  2022.

 

     T.VINODHKUMAR                                                R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN                                                                               

           MEMBER                                                                   PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the complainant:

Ex.A1	11.09.2012	Death certificate of the complainant’s wife
Ex.A2	01.11.2012 01.12.2012	System generated debit advice
Ex.A3	30.01.2004	Statement of A/c issued by the complainant’s bank
Ex.A4	11.12.2012	Legal notice issued by the complainant counsel
Ex.A5	31.01.2013	Reply Notice issued by the opposite party
Ex.A6	18.02.2013	Rejoinder sent by the complainant counsel
Ex.A7	23.02.2013	Acknowledgment card

       List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:

Ex.B1	-	Copy of power of Attorney
Ex.B2	-	Statement of Accounts

 

       

 

     T.VINODHKUMAR                                                R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN                                                                              

             MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT