<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 28.06.2008<br /> <br /> 21st AUGUST 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1440/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.S.Sardar Basha,<br /> No.58, Star Building,<br /> 2nd K Cross Road,<br /> M.Ramaiah Extension,<br /> Peenya 2nd Stage,<br /> Bangalore – 560 058.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Citi Financial Bank,<br /> No.286, Sampige Road,<br /> 17th and 18th Cross Middle,<br /> Malleshwaram,<br /> Bangalore – 560 003.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Kohli & Sobti.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <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 refund the excess of loan amount collected to the tune of Rs.5,179/- and pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- 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 /> Complainant availed the loan from OP on 26.09.2005 to an extent of Rs.25,000/- repayable in a monthly instalment of Rs.1,344/-. On 25.03.2008 complainant has cleared the entire loan including the interest. OP issued the receipt to that effect as a full and final payment. But still subsequently it has collected two more ECS to the tune of Rs.2,818/- each. When complainant came to know of the said fact, he immediately approached the OP to refund the said amount but it went in vain. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant has not availed the loan for education purpose which he has pleaded. But it is for commercial purpose. OP is bound by the RBI regulations and guidelines in recovery of the loan amount. Complainant has suppressed certain material facts which are well within his knowledge. At no point of time OP collected excess of EMI after the settlement of the loan amount in due. The other allegations are baseless. Complaint is false, devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> 4. 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 /> 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:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.25,000/- from OP on 26.09.2005. According to the complainant took an education loan whereas OP has contended that it is a commercial loan, no such documents are produced in that regard by either of the parties. It is further contended by the complainant that he was required to repay the said loan in an monthly instalment of Rs.1,344/-. He had cleared entire loan on 25.03.2008 including that of the interest and OP received it and passed the receipt. Repayment receipt copy is produced.<br /> <br /> 7. On the perusal of the said repayment receipt copy, which bears the signature of both complainant as well as collector of the said amount for and on behalf of the OP. It clearly discloses that OP received Rs.55,898/- towards full and final settlement. It is dated 29.03.2008. OP has not disputed the signature of the collector who acted on their behalf. Under the circumstances we are satisfied to say that complainant paid the entire loan amount on 29.03.2008.<br /> <br /> 8. It is further contended by the complainant that even after clearing of the said loan, OP has collected Rs.5,179/- excess again under the head of full and final payment. The first repayment receipt is generated on 29.03.2008 at 10.59 A.M and the second repayment receipt on the same day generated at 11.01 AM. Of course OP has not disputed the contents of the second repayment receipt also. When that is so, when once OP received the entire balance as full and final settlement at 10.59 AM what made them to collect Rs.5,179/- at 11.01 AM again is not known. This amount Rs.5,179/- appears to be the 2 ECS at the rate of Rs.2,818/- each.<br /> <br /> 9. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the above said undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defece sake. For no fault of his, complainant is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. The hostile attitude of the OP must have naturally caused him prejudice. Under such circumstances we find that there is a proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant is entitled for certain relief. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. OP is directed to refund Rs.5,179/- together with interest at the rate 7% p.a from April 2008 till realization and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (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 21st day of August 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />