Punjab

StateCommission

A/10/697

Joginder Kamat - Complainant(s)

Versus

Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Dharam Pal

21 Jan 2015

ORDER

2^nd Additional Bench

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH

First Appeal No. 697 of 2010

                                                           

                                    Date of institution: 29.4.2010  

                             Date of Decision:  21.1.2015

 

Joginder Kamat son of Sh. Jadoo Kamat r/o Near Railway Officer, RTP Ropar now at Nuhon Colony GGSSTP, Roopnagar, Tehsil and District Roopnagar.

…..Appellant/Complainant

                                      Versus

Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd., Branch Office Giani Zail Singh Nagar Roopnagar, Tehsil and Distt. Roopnagar through its Branch Manager.

…..Respondent/Opposite Party

 

First Appeal against the order dated 25.3.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar.

 

Quorum:-

 

              Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

              Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant             :         Sh. Dharam Pal, Advocate

          For the respondent :         Sh. D.K. Singal, Advocate

 

Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member

ORDER

The appellant/complainant(hereinafter referred as “the complainant”) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 25.3.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar(hereinafter referred as “the District Forum”) in consumer complaint No.672          dated 3.11.2009 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.  

2.                The complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) against the respondents/opposite parties(hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’)  on the allegations that he approached the Ops and requested for consumer loan on easy installments. The Ops paid a sum of Rs. 33,911/- vide cheque dated 26.9.2006 to be recovered in monthly instalments of Rs. 1789/- each. Then a sum of Rs. 19053.13p was given vide cheque dated 20.8.2007 and then monthly instalments was revised to Rs. 2125/- and then another amount of Rs. 24,425.65p was paid vide cheque dated 25.6.2008 and monthly instalments was revised to Rs. 3153/-. The complainant was paying the loan instalments regularly as agreed but the Ops orally stated that a sum of Rs. 67,500/- is still outstanding, which is unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, the complaint with a direction to the Ops to charge and calculate the interest on the loan amount as per RBI directions, refund and adjust the amount like collection charges per month in the account of the complainant, supply the statement of account after calculating and adjusting the amount and receive the balance exact amount in lumpsum and also awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.

3.                The complaint was contested by the Ops by taking preliminary objections that the complainant does not fall within the definition of the ‘consumer’; complaint was not maintainable as the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has presented an incorrect version; complaint was not maintainable as no cause of action had arisen in favour of the complainant and that there was no prima-facie case in favour of the complainant to file this complaint. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant had approached the opposite party for financial assistance and availed personal loan of Rs. 35,000/- vide loan agreement bearing No. 9638036 on 26.9.2006, second loan of Rs. 50,000/- vide loan agreement No. 12977521 on 20.7.2007 and 3^rd loan in the sum of Rs. 78,000/- on 25.6.2008 against loan agreement No. 15371076. It was to be repaid in 48 monthly EMIs @ Rs. 3153/- per month and still a sum of Rs. 71,750.26p was outstanding against the complainant. In the agreement, it was agreed to charge the interest @ 23.5%. There was no merit in the complaint and it be dismissed.

4.                The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence. Complainant had tendered his affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith documents Exs. C-2 to C-5. Ops had tendered affidavit of B. Shekhar Ex. RW-1/A alongwith documents Ex. R-2 to R-8.

5.                After going through the allegations in the complaint, written reply filed by the OP, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was dismissed by the learned District Forum.

6.                During the pendency of the appeal, the counsel for the respondent-Company made a statement before this Commission that the respondent-Company had already closed the account of the complainant and nothing is to be recovered from the appellant/complainant. Accordingly, the appeal as well as complaint filed by the complainant has become infructuous. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby disposed off as infructuous.

7.                The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.

 

 (Gurcharan Singh Saran)

Presiding Judicial Member

 

January 21, 2015.                                                                                                                                                        (Jasbir Singh Gill)

as                                                                                                                                                                                              Member