Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/163/2007

S.Venkatesaan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Citigroup Global Service.Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Kathissa Mohun

01 Jun 2016

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :  05.04. 2007

                                                                        Date of Order :  01.06.2016.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

           DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.163/2007

WEDNESDAY THIS  1^ST  DAY OF JUNE  2016

 

S. Venkatesan,

S/o. Late V.s.Seethapathy,

No.15, Annai Indira Gandhi

Street Extension,

Mahalakshmi Nagar,

Selaiyur Post,

Chennai 600 073.                                            ..Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

Customer Assistant Officer,

Citigroup Global Services Ltd.,

Tower Victorie, 1^st Floor,

45, G.N. Chetty Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.                               ..Opposite party  

 

 

For the Complainant                  :   M/s. Kathissa Mohun.

For the opposite party               :   M/s. R. Balaji & another    

 

        Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against  the opposite party  to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation  for deficiency and negligence of service.       

ORDER

THIRU.   T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN ::    MEMBER-II      

 

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:

          The  complainant submit that he had availed three loans for Rs.24,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.45,000/- respectively on 10.3.2004, 17.1.2006 and 17.5.2006 from the opposite party. The period of repayment for the said loans as 36 months, 48 months and 36 months.  The EMI for the above loans were as Rs.821/-, Rs.3044/- and Rs.1627/- respectively.  The repayment period expired on March 2007, January 2010 and May 2009 respectively.  Out of the first loan he paid Rs.24,000/- only six EMI’s are pending out of the second loan the EMI’s paid up to August 2006, out of the Third loan the EMI’s paid up to August 2006.  The complainant approached the opposite party and sought for breakup details of accounts and the request sought by the complainant to get the account sheet was denied by the opposite party.  The response from the opposite party’s attitude and negligence of the bank authorities created mental tortures to complainant.   As such the complainant sought for claim of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and negligence.   Hence the complaint.

Written version of opposite party is briefly as follows:-

2.     The opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.     The opposite party submitted that  the complainant had availed the facility of account is farfetched imagination as the complainant had the option of down loading the statement  through internet or he could have contacted over phone banking section of the opposite party and could have demanded the statement of accounts.  Thus the complainant cannot take advantage of the same and deny the repayment of loan due on the said accounts.  It is well laid and established by the Apex court that claims for damages that are not actual and real and made in a speculative manner has to be rejected.   Further the complainant has not referred any cogent material or convincing evidence on record to establish any loss or injury alleged to have been suffered by  the complainant.     Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite party.     Therefore this compliant deserve to be dismissed with costs. 

3.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Proof affidavit of Opposite party   filed  and no document was marked on the side of the  opposite party.    

4.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1)   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the  reliefs sought for?.

5.     POINTS 1 & 2 :

           Perused the complaint filed by the complainant and his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5  were marked on the side of the complainant.  Written version and proof affidavit filed by the opposite party  and also considered the both side arguments.

6.     The complainant availed loan from City Group Global Service Ltd., Rs.24,000/- on 10.3.2004, Rs.1,00,000/- on 17.1.2006, and Rs.45,000/- on 17.5.2006 and repayment schedule is on equitable monthly installments 1^st loan for 36 months EMI Rs.821/- 2^nd loan for 48 months and the EMI Rs.3044/- and the 3^rd loan for 36 months and the EMI is Rs.1627/- respectively.    It is informed by the complainant repayment period expires for 1^st loan on March 2007 2^nd loan on January 2010 and 3^rd loan on May 2009.   It is stated that the complainant had paid Rs.24,000/- only for first loan and he had a balance of 6 EMIs and he states that he repaid for the 2^nd loan up to August 2006 the 3^rd loan EMI has been paid up to August 2006.   In order to clear the loans the complainant approached the opposite party and sought for breakup details of accounts and the request sought by the complainant to get the account sheet was denied by the opposite party.    The complainant claims the attitude and negligence of the bank authority for non provisioning of said details had created mental agony and states it is an atrocity of the opposite party and highly irregular against the law.    As a result the complainant filed a complaint in this forum 5^th April 2007 praying to award compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the deficiency in service and mental agony suffered by complainant from the opposite party.   

7.     The opposite party denied the allegations and the averments given by the complainant and he has replied by quoting Sec.2 1 (g) and 2 (1) (o) of the CPRAO 1986 and the opposite party has contended that the claim made by the complainant which has resulted into depression and mental agony to the complainant could not be accepted.  The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party on flimsy grounds, the opposite party contended that they have not given any instruction or communication to get downloading of the accounts statement through internet.    The tortures mental agony and physical inabilities were based on direct result of the complainant and not due to the deficiency of service of opposite party the allegation filed against opposite party reasoning non compliance of providing accounts statement resulted in mental agony could not be accepted.   

8.     For pre-closure of accounts it is a primary freedom of the complainant to settle the claim which will be gladly accepted by the bank.   The down loading of the loan statement it will be originated only from the bankers end, not form the individual borrowers.   The opposite party contended it is a frivolous compliant and claiming Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency and negligence could not be accepted, hence the opposite party request the forum to dismiss the case.

9.     Pursuant on the complaint, proof affidavit, written arguments and documents, filed by the complainant and the version and proof affidavit filed by the opposite party and we found the complainant had not submitted the evidence of service of notice directing the opposite party stating that the opposite party had acted in a negligent manner.   In the documents and subsequent documents filed by the complainant  it  is  the  complainant had hypertension  and  admission   in  the  hospital  doesn’t  relate  to the case is claiming  for  the compensation clearly proves, it  is  act   arisen  out of accident.    It  doesn’t relate to the negligent attitude   and deficiency of service resulted into his hospitalization.   Moreover the legal notice served by his counsel is to Bharti Airtel Ltd under Ex.A2.  It is the duty of the complainant to serve legal notice to the opposite party then he should get their reply and substantiate proof of negligence through documents and evidences.   But the complainant failed to do so.

10.    On perusal of the entire records, the complaint is filed by the complainant is an act of abuse of court of law without any valid reason.   However the citation  to refer National Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in support of the opposite party  contention i.e.

Pramod Kumar Rai

..Vs..

M/s. Shriram Transport Finance

 

Published in 2012 (3) CPR (NC)

Held that  

“ The complainant is a defaulter cannot derive   advantage  of his default. 

 

This view is supported by the National Commission in the case of Surendra Kumar Agarwal ..Vs.. Telco Finance Limited & Anr.,  II 2010 CPJ 163 NC,   Based on this the complainant found to be a defaulter and the complainant being a defaulter without any basis in order to get wrongful gain he doesn’t have jurisdiction in the consumer Forum.   The argument of the learned counsel of the opposite party in this count found to be justifiable.   Regarding the claim on the side of complainant may seek his redressal through Civil procedure and not through consumer Redressal forum.   Hence the complaint filed by the complainant stands dismissed.  No cost and accordingly points 1 & 2 are answered. 

        In the result the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the  1^st  day  of  June  2016.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1 – 16.03.2007 - Copy of Personal visit.

Ex.A2-  24.03.2007 - Copy of Details of incoming call list.

Ex.A3-  10.12.2007 – Copy of medical report.

Ex.A4-  14.12.2007 – Copy of medical report.

Ex.A5-  05.05.2008 - Copy of medical certificate.

 

Opposite party’s Exhibits:-      .. Nil ..

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.