citi finacial ltd V/S siddagowda - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/2836

siddagowda - Complainant(s)

Versus

citi finacial ltd - Opp.Party(s)

28 Mar 2009

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/2836

siddagowda						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
citi finacial ltd						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 29.12.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 28th MARCH 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2836/2008 COMPLAINANT Siddegowda. B, C/o. Lakshmi Medicals, #570, Ist Main Road, Ist Cross Road, Om Shakti Temple Road, Lakshmannagar, Vishwanedam Post, Bangalore 560 091. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Citi Financial, No. 1846, 2nd Stage, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Near Navarang, Bangalore 560 010. Advocate (M.H. Hidayathulla) O R D E R 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 pay a compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant availed a loan of Rs.35,000/- from OP, but after deducting some hidden charges OP disbursed only Rs.31,700/- and asked the complainant to repay the same in an EMI of Rs.1,935/-. Complainant started making payment of the said EMI from 05.08.2007. He is prompt in making payment of 17 EMI. With all that OP insisting him to clear the outstanding dues and they went on charging the exorbitant interest on the amount in due. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to reduce the interest and set right the accounts, went in futile. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant is expected to repay the said loan in 36 EMI at the rate of Rs.1,935/-. As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement they have deducted the insurance premium, credit shield, processing fee, service tax, etc. There is nothing wrong committed by them. But thereafter complainant became the chronic defaulter in payment of the EMI. Even some of the cheques issued by the complainant towards the EMI bounced. Under such circumstances OP has got a right to collect the cheque bounce charges, penal interest for delayed payment as per the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement. As on today complainant is still in due of Rs.30,337.45. When OP made demand of the same complainant has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. 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: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.35,000/- from OP repayable in 36 EMI at the rate of Rs.1,935/-. A loan agreement came to be executed. Complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the said loan agreement. According to the complainant he has paid only 17 instalments, though required to pay 36 EMI. It is further contended by the complainant that OP has charged exorbitant interest. For this allegation basically there is no proof. On the other hand it is contended by the OP that the complainant is a chronic defaulter and some of the cheques given towards EMI are bounced. As such they have imposed the penal interest and cheque bounce charges. That act of the OP in our view cannot be termed as deficiency in service. 7. According to the OP as on today the complainant is still in due of Rs.30,337.45. When OP made demand of the same complainant has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. We find substance in the defence of the OP because complainant has not disputed the fact of outstanding dues. We have closely scrutinized both oral and documentary evidence, in our view OP has exercised its powers well within the limits of loan agreement. When that is so, complainant being the defaulter he cannot allege the deficiency in service. 8. On the plain reading of the allegations made in the complaint, it did not spell out a case of hiring of service and suffering from deficiency, rather it disclosed a case relating to settlement of accounts and for the balance due on the basis of the accounts. Under such circumstances the complainant did not fall within the ambit of sec-2(1) (c) (e) of the C.P. Act. If the complainant is so advised, he can file a regular Civil Suit to redress his grievance if any. The complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 28th day of March 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 29.12.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 28th MARCH 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2836/2008 COMPLAINANT Siddegowda. B, C/o. Lakshmi Medicals, #570, Ist Main Road, Ist Cross Road, Om Shakti Temple Road, Lakshmannagar, Vishwanedam Post, Bangalore 560 091. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Citi Financial, No. 1846, 2nd Stage, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Near Navarang, Bangalore 560 010. Advocate (M.H. Hidayathulla) O R D E R 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 pay a compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant availed a loan of Rs.35,000/- from OP, but after deducting some hidden charges OP disbursed only Rs.31,700/- and asked the complainant to repay the same in an EMI of Rs.1,935/-. Complainant started making payment of the said EMI from 05.08.2007. He is prompt in making payment of 17 EMI. With all that OP insisting him to clear the outstanding dues and they went on charging the exorbitant interest on the amount in due. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to reduce the interest and set right the accounts, went in futile. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant is expected to repay the said loan in 36 EMI at the rate of Rs.1,935/-. As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement they have deducted the insurance premium, credit shield, processing fee, service tax, etc. There is nothing wrong committed by them. But thereafter complainant became the chronic defaulter in payment of the EMI. Even some of the cheques issued by the complainant towards the EMI bounced. Under such circumstances OP has got a right to collect the cheque bounce charges, penal interest for delayed payment as per the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement. As on today complainant is still in due of Rs.30,337.45. When OP made demand of the same complainant has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. 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: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.35,000/- from OP repayable in 36 EMI at the rate of Rs.1,935/-. A loan agreement came to be executed. Complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the said loan agreement. According to the complainant he has paid only 17 instalments, though required to pay 36 EMI. It is further contended by the complainant that OP has charged exorbitant interest. For this allegation basically there is no proof. On the other hand it is contended by the OP that the complainant is a chronic defaulter and some of the cheques given towards EMI are bounced. As such they have imposed the penal interest and cheque bounce charges. That act of the OP in our view cannot be termed as deficiency in service. 7. According to the OP as on today the complainant is still in due of Rs.30,337.45. When OP made demand of the same complainant has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. We find substance in the defence of the OP because complainant has not disputed the fact of outstanding dues. We have closely scrutinized both oral and documentary evidence, in our view OP has exercised its powers well within the limits of loan agreement. When that is so, complainant being the defaulter he cannot allege the deficiency in service. 8. On the plain reading of the allegations made in the complaint, it did not spell out a case of hiring of service and suffering from deficiency, rather it disclosed a case relating to settlement of accounts and for the balance due on the basis of the accounts. Under such circumstances the complainant did not fall within the ambit of sec-2(1) (c) (e) of the C.P. Act. If the complainant is so advised, he can file a regular Civil Suit to redress his grievance if any. The complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 28th day of March 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.