Citi financial consumer finance limited V/S R Vishwanath - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/1689/08

R Vishwanath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Citi financial consumer finance limited - Opp.Party(s)

15 Oct 2008

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/1689/08

R Vishwanath						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Citi financial consumer finance limited						...........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: 31.07.2008 15th OCTOBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1689/2008 COMPLAINANT R. Vishwanath, Aged about 37 years, R/a No. 96/A, 4th Cross, Laksmi Nagar, Kirloskar Colony, Bangalore 560 079. Advocate (N. Kiran) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Citifinancial Consumer Finance Ltd., No.1, Raheja Chancery, 133, Brigade Road, Bangalore 560 025. 2. Citifinancial Consumer Finance Ltd., Regd. Office: # 3, LSC Pushp Vihar, New Delhi 110 062. Advocate (Ajay Kohli) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to reimburse Rs.1,921/- with interest and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant has availed a loan of Rs.35,000/- from OP.1 and agreed to repay the same through ECS in an EMI of Rs.1,921/-. Thereafter complainant intended to settle the said loan under one time settlement and paid the entire amount. With all that an extra EMI of Rs.1,921/- was collected by the OP, which is unjust and improper. Though complainant is regular in making payment of all the instalments in time and also closed the account by paying the total amount in due including the interest, OP arbitrarily encashed one more cheque. Complainant immediately got issued the legal notice to OP to reimburse the same, but it went in futile. Thus complainant felt the 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 relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant is required to repay the said loan amount in 36 EMI. A loan agreement dated 14.03.2006 came to be executed in that regard. Complainant sought for foreclosure of the said loan. On 18.04.2008 OP acted upon accordingly. It is the duty of the complainant to intimate his banker to stop further payment through ECS, but he failed to do so, for that OP cannot be blamed. Complainant would have sent an instruction to his banker recalling the cheque issued by him towards payment of EMI through ECS, again he failed to do so. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits. 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 Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative 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 from OP to the tune of Rs.35,000/- under account No. 1559. It is also not at dispute that OP agreed to repay the said loan in an 36 EMI at the rate of Rs.1,921/- and loan agreement came to executed on 14.03.2006. According to the complainant he authorized his banker to send the said EMI through ECS and he is prompt in making payment of the said instalments, there is no default. It is further contended that complainant inclined for the foreclosure of the said account. Thus paid whatever the balance in due including the interest and the account is closed on 18.04.2008. The fact that OP accepted the foreclosure received the balance and closed the account on 18.04.2008 is not at dispute. 7. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that evenafter the foreclosure of the said loan account OP has encashed one more EMI to the tune of Rs.1,921/-. Of course this fact is also admitted by the OP. According to OP complainant would have been little diligent in instructing the banker to stop payment through ECS, but he failed to do so. For that OP cannot be blamed. We do not find force in the contention of the OP in that regard. Of course there is some negligence on the part of the complainant. But if OP is honest, would have returned the said cheque without encashing the same to show their bonafides and transparency in their transactions. OP has not done the same, it want to get itself enriched illegally by collecting extra EMI evenafter the foreclosure of the said loan. Here we find the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The approach of the OP does not appears to be fair and honest. 8. On the perusal of the version of the OP at para.6 it is contended that OP is ready to refund the excess of amount to the complainant. If that willingness was there, what made OP to retain the said amount for all these days is not known. With all fairness it would have refunded the said amount by addressing a letter to complainant, but no such steps are taken. So the hostile attitude of the OP must have naturally caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of his. Under such circumstances we find it is a fit case, wherein the complainant deserves certain relief as prayed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.1,921/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of encashment till this day and pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (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 15th day of October 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 31.07.2008 15th OCTOBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1689/2008 COMPLAINANT R. Vishwanath, Aged about 37 years, R/a No. 96/A, 4th Cross, Laksmi Nagar, Kirloskar Colony, Bangalore 560 079. Advocate (N. Kiran) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Citifinancial Consumer Finance Ltd., No.1, Raheja Chancery, 133, Brigade Road, Bangalore 560 025. 2. Citifinancial Consumer Finance Ltd., Regd. Office: # 3, LSC Pushp Vihar, New Delhi 110 062. Advocate (Ajay Kohli) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to reimburse Rs.1,921/- with interest and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant has availed a loan of Rs.35,000/- from OP.1 and agreed to repay the same through ECS in an EMI of Rs.1,921/-. Thereafter complainant intended to settle the said loan under one time settlement and paid the entire amount. With all that an extra EMI of Rs.1,921/- was collected by the OP, which is unjust and improper. Though complainant is regular in making payment of all the instalments in time and also closed the account by paying the total amount in due including the interest, OP arbitrarily encashed one more cheque. Complainant immediately got issued the legal notice to OP to reimburse the same, but it went in futile. Thus complainant felt the 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 relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant is required to repay the said loan amount in 36 EMI. A loan agreement dated 14.03.2006 came to be executed in that regard. Complainant sought for foreclosure of the said loan. On 18.04.2008 OP acted upon accordingly. It is the duty of the complainant to intimate his banker to stop further payment through ECS, but he failed to do so, for that OP cannot be blamed. Complainant would have sent an instruction to his banker recalling the cheque issued by him towards payment of EMI through ECS, again he failed to do so. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits. 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 Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative 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 from OP to the tune of Rs.35,000/- under account No. 1559. It is also not at dispute that OP agreed to repay the said loan in an 36 EMI at the rate of Rs.1,921/- and loan agreement came to executed on 14.03.2006. According to the complainant he authorized his banker to send the said EMI through ECS and he is prompt in making payment of the said instalments, there is no default. It is further contended that complainant inclined for the foreclosure of the said account. Thus paid whatever the balance in due including the interest and the account is closed on 18.04.2008. The fact that OP accepted the foreclosure received the balance and closed the account on 18.04.2008 is not at dispute. 7. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that evenafter the foreclosure of the said loan account OP has encashed one more EMI to the tune of Rs.1,921/-. Of course this fact is also admitted by the OP. According to OP complainant would have been little diligent in instructing the banker to stop payment through ECS, but he failed to do so. For that OP cannot be blamed. We do not find force in the contention of the OP in that regard. Of course there is some negligence on the part of the complainant. But if OP is honest, would have returned the said cheque without encashing the same to show their bonafides and transparency in their transactions. OP has not done the same, it want to get itself enriched illegally by collecting extra EMI evenafter the foreclosure of the said loan. Here we find the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The approach of the OP does not appears to be fair and honest. 8. On the perusal of the version of the OP at para.6 it is contended that OP is ready to refund the excess of amount to the complainant. If that willingness was there, what made OP to retain the said amount for all these days is not known. With all fairness it would have refunded the said amount by addressing a letter to complainant, but no such steps are taken. So the hostile attitude of the OP must have naturally caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of his. Under such circumstances we find it is a fit case, wherein the complainant deserves certain relief as prayed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.1,921/- together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of encashment till this day and pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (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 15th day of October 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.