<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 30-01-2009<br /> DISPOSED ON:22-08-2009<br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 22ND AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.280/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.K.R.JagadeeshC/o.Angadi Hanumanthappa,8th ‘A’ Cross, Kamakshipalya Magadi Main Road,Bangalore – 560 079.Party in personV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Citi Bank,M.G. Road,Bangalore – 560 001.Advocate – Sri.Madhusudan Prabhu<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to close the loan account and pay a compensation and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> 2. Complainant availed vehicle loan from the OP on 24-02-2004 to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- then purchased vehicle bearing No.KA-02 NJ-9728. Complainant was required to repay the said loan with interest in a EMI of 59 at the rate of Rs.2,107/-. Complainant did make payment of the EMI regularly. With all that OP caused a notice demanding Rs.35,695/- which is unjust and improper. OP without the consent of the complainant imposed cheque bounce charges, service charges, Tax etc. The arbitrary act of OP has caused him both mental agony and financial loss. Though he has repaid the entire loan amount, but still OP is insisting him to make payment of amount in due. Thus he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. When his repeated request and demands made to OP to close the account went in futile, he is advised to file this complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the complaint is barred by time. Complainant is required to pay the said loan amount with interest in 59 EMI regularly on due dates. But some of the cheques issued by the complainant were bounce. Under such circumstances OP in view of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement has a right to charge penal interest, cheque bounced charges, delayed charges etc. Complainant was expected to repay the said loan by 01-01-2009, but he failed to do so. Hence, the notice was issued. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made by the complainant are baseless. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed a vehicle loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the OP on 24-02-2004agreeing to repay in 59 EMI at the rate of Rs.2,107/-. It is a case of the complainant that he did make payment of the amount in due. Inspite of that OP made a illegal claim of Rs.35,695/- which includes cheque bounce charges, service charges, delayed payment charges etc. Actually complainant is not liable to pay the said penal interest or cheque bounced charges. When his repeated request and demands made to OP to close his account went in vain he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 8. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that the complainant is a chronic defaulter. The cheque issued by him several times bounced and there is a delayed payment, regular installments are not paid on due dates. To substantiate their allegations OP has produced several documents which they speaks to the fact of dishonor of cheques, stop payment through of ECS. Under such circumstances we have no other go but to believe the say of the OP which finds supports from the contents of the undisputed document the Bank records maintained regularly in the ordinary course of transaction and Banking business. <br /> <br /> 9. Complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the loan agreement executed by him. The said terms and conditions disclose in default of the payment of installments on due dates, or in delayed payment, and if the cheques are bounced ECS is not cleared OP has a right to impose penal interest, delayed payment charges, cheque bounce charges etc. So if the OP has invoked the power conferred under the said loan agreement that act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and both oral and documentary evidence lead by the litigating parties, we are of the view that the complainant is a defaulter. When that is so, he can’t allege the deficiency in service against the OP. Complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Hence, complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 22nd day of August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> NRS <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />