Date of Filing: 23.01.2008<br /> Date of Order: 21.05.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 21st DAY OF MAY 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. Bajentri H.M, B.A, LL.B., President<br /> Smt.C.V. Rajamma, B.Sc., LL.B., PGDPR, Member<br /> Sri. M. Nagabhushana, B.Com, LL.B., Member<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 204 OF 2008<br /> Smt. Anitha Anil Kumar Dandina,<br /> No.11, “Yeshwashvi”<br /> Anugraha Layout, 3rd Cross,<br /> Bilekahalli, Bannerghatta Road,<br /> BANGALORE – 560 076. …… COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> - V/S -<br /> <br /> 1. Dhanalakshmi (Tele Caller)<br /> <br /> 2. Leena, Manager,<br /> <br /> both are at :- <br /> CITI FINANCIAL”<br /> consumer Finance India Limited,<br /> Brigade Road Branch, No.133,<br /> Raheja Chancery Building,<br /> BANGALORE – 560 025. .....OPPOSITE PARTIES<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This complaint is filed claiming compensation of Rs.20,000/- from the opposite parties on the following grounds :-<br /> <br /> 2. The complainant had availed personal loan of Rs.54,900/- from the opposite party on 24.12.2007. Earlier also she had availed loan from the opposite party and was prompt in repaying the loan through Electronic Clearing Service(ECS) in installments. In December-2007, one Dhanalakshmi of the opposite party Institution contacted her through phone appreciated regarding the prompt repayment of the loan and offered additional loan. When she agreed to avail additional loan, the opposite party sanctioned loan of Rs.54,900/- and deducting the balance of the earlier loan issued cheques dated: 24.12.2007 for Rs.29,012/-. The repayment of the loan so availed was to commence from February-2008 at the rate of Rs.1,884/- per month through Electronic Clearing Service. When the balance of the earlier loan was adjusted out of the loan sanctioned subsequently the earlier loan amount stood cleared in December-2007. Inspite of it, in January-2008 the opposite party received Rs,1,884/- towards discharge of the earlier loan from her account. As a result the credit balance in her account got reduced and therefore a cheque for Rs.4,200/- issued by her favoring some body got dishonored for insufficient funds, thereby her reputation in the bank was spoiled and she was charged Rs.60/- towards cheque bouncing charges. The person in whose favour the cheque for Rs.4,200/- was issued also collected Rs.500/- as penalty from her. In these circumstances she was subjected to mental agony. The Bank did not respond properly when she enquired with regard to the repayment of cheques. When she brought these facts to the notice of the opposite party no proper response was given. Though the opposite party had agreed to refund Rs.1,884/- cheque bounce charges of Rs.60/- and penalty of Rs.500/- the same is not complied with. Hence, the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the version the contention of the opposite party is as under:-<br /> There is no cause of action to file the complaint. The complainant is not a “Consumer” within the meaning of Section-2 of the Consumer Protection Act. No body on behalf of the opposite party offered to provide additional loan to the complainant. It is the complainant herself who approached for top up loan of Rs.54,900/- by deducting and clearing the earlier loan amount. Accordingly, the loan of Rs.54,900/- was sanctioned on 24.12.2007 & Rs.29,012/- was disbursed deducting the amount due in respect of the earlier loan. The EMI for the new loan was supposed to be started by ECS from the month of February-2008. The earlier loan was cleared in the month of December-2007. The complainant had issued ECS mandate for automatic debit of the monthly installments to her bankers. As a matter of abundant precaution the complainant was requested to issue stop payment request on the ECS mandate with her bankers. The complainant failed to instruct her banker to stop payment through ECS and therefore the cheque was cleared on 10.01.2008. The opposite party undertakes to refund the sum of Rs.1,884/- which has been cleared in respect of the earlier loan account. On these grounds the opposite party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In support of the respective contentions both the parties have filed affidavits. When the matter came up for arguments the complainant remained absent. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 5. The points for consideration are :-<br /> <br /> (a) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in <br /> service on the part of the opposite party ?<br /> <br /> (b) Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed <br /> for in the complaint ?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings to the above points is in the negative for the following :-<br /> REASONS<br /> 7. Admittedly, earlier to 24.12.2007 the complainant had availed certain loan from the opposite party and without clearing the said loan she availed additional loan of Rs.54,900/- from the opposite party on 24.12.2007 and deducting the amount due in respect of the earlier loan the opposite party paid Rs.29,012/- to the complainant in December-2007. The complainant admits that she had given ECS mandate to her banker for payment of equated monthly installments to the opposite party in-respect of the earlier loan. In that event, when she availed additional loan and out of the loan so availed, cleared the balance in respect of earlier loan, she was required to instruct her banker to stop payment of the monthly installments in respect of the earlier loan. As understood the Electronic clearing service mandate is given by the account holder to his banker to make payment of certain amount periodically to another institution to clear the loan with the other institution. When once, the loan is cleared it becomes responsibility of the account holder to instruct his banker to stop payment through ECS Mandate as instructed earlier. If such instructions are not given, the banker proceeds to make payment of the amount as per instructions on due date. In such circumstances the account holder cannot find fault with the Institution, which received payment through ECS mandate. In the case on hand also when the complainant cleared the earlier loan in December-2007 by rising additional loan she was required to intimate her banker to stop payment of monthly installments in respect of the earlier loan. When the complainant herself failed to instruct her banker the payment was made to the opposite party as per the earlier instructions. It is not the case of the complainant that in December-2007 she had instructed her banker to stop payment of monthly installments in respect of the earlier loan. That being so, we are unable to find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite parties admit for having received Rs.1,884/- from the banker of the complainant in January-2008 towards earlier loan and has undertaken to refund that amount to the complainant. In the circumstances, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to compensation as claimed in the complainant. In the result, we pass the following :-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> <br /> 8. The complaint is disposed-off with the direction to the opposite party to refund Rs.1,884/- to the complainant either by direct payment or by crediting the said amount to the Bank account of the complaint within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.<br /> <br /> 9. Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs immediately.<br /> <br /> 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 21st DAY OF MAY-2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />