distt.consumer moga district consumer forum,moga consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/112
Krishan Chand
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
City financial Consumer City Financial
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Jagmohan Singh Chawla 2. Smt.Bhupinder Kaur
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Krishan Chand
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No: 112 of 2007. Instituted On: 05.09.2007. Date of Service: 24.09.2007. Decided On: 09.05.2008. Krishan Chand alias Kishan Chand (aged 55 years) son of Sh.Lal Chand son of Sh.Lachhman Dass, resident of House No. 26/855, Purana Bazar, Moga. Complainant. Versus 1. City Financial Consumer Finance India Limited, 3 LSC, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi-110 062. 2. City Financial Consumer Finance India Limited, Shahid Bhagat Singh Market, G.T.Road, Moga. Opposite Parties. Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President. Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member. Present: Sh.Ajay Gulati, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.Vaneet Mittal, Advocate counsel for the OPs. (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT) Sh.Krishan Chand complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as Act) against City Financial Consumer Finance India Limited, New Delhi and another (herein-after referred to as City Financial)-opposite parties directing them to refund Rs.4256/- with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 14.8.2007, to return documents/unused blank cheques, sale deed of the complainant lying with OPs-City Financial, to issue no due certificate and also to pay Rs.25000/- on account of damages/ compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation due to deficiency in service on their part. 2. Briefly stated, Krishan Chand complainant had availed loan worth Rs.285000/- from the OPs-City Financial. That the OPs-City Financial had taken 38 cheques of Bank of India, Partap Road, Moga equivalent to EMI of Rs.4256/- as per repayment schedule of the OPs-City Financial. That the complainant has deposited the entire outstanding loan against him amounting to Rs.296370/- to the OPs-City Financial vide receipt no.91166 dated 26.7.2007. On 14.8.2007 when the complainant visited the OPs-City Financial, he was stunned to note that the OPs-City Financial had presented another cheque for Rs.4256/ which was given by him at the time of advancement of loan. That neither the complainant was under any liability to make such payment of Rs.4256/- to the OPs-City Financial, nor the OPs-City Financial has any right or claim to misuse the above said cheque after making the full and final payment to them. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of OPs-City Financial time and again for the refund of aforesaid amount of Rs.4256/- and also demanded all his documents & blank cheques, sale deed and no due certificate but to no effect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-City Financial had caused him great mental tension and harassment. Hence, the present complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-City Financial, who appeared through Sh.Vaneet Mittal Advocate and filed the written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the matter involves intricate, complex and complicated questions of law and fact which will require detailed or elaborate trial and involve leading of voluminous evidence which is possible only in regular proceedings before a Civil Court and can not be effectively, properly and judiciously adjudicated under the provisions of the Act before this Forum and that the subject matter of the complaint is commercial in nature and as such does not fall within the scope, ambit and purview of the Act and as such the same is liable to be rejected. On merits, it was averred that the complainant was well aware of the contents of the said agreement which was executed by him with his free will and accord. It was further averred that the OPs-City Financial never got blank cheques signed from the complainant towards EMIs or otherwise nor the tenure for the repayment of the said loan was 120 months. It was also averred that even after the foreclosure amount was paid, the cheque bearing no.255850 issued by the complainant for the purpose of EMI, was encashed. It was further averred that the banking of cheques issued by the borrowers to the OPs-City Financial is their central process and accordingly the cheques are stored, managed as well as presented for encashment through the registered office of OPs-City Financial at Delhi. The complainant was requested to instruct his bankers to stop payment of the said cheque, upon foreclosure of the loan, by the OPs-City Financial as there was a likelihood that such cheque might have got presented for encashment in routine and before relevant instructions regarding foreclosure of account could reach the said registered office of the OPs-City Financial. That the complainant did not comply with this request and therefore, the said cheque was encashed. It was further averred that sum of Rs.4256/- has already been refunded to the complainant on 13.9.2007. It was denied that the OPs-City Financial has refused to return the sale deed, other documents or to issue the NDC to the complainant. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs-City Financial. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint being false and frivolous may please be dismissed. 4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of payment receipt Ex.A2, copy of letter Ex.A3, copy of pass book Ex.A4, copy of statement of account Ex.A5 and closed his evidence. 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-City Financial tendered affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.Ashish Singh, copy of statement of account Ex.R2, copy of cheque Ex.R3 and closed their evidence. 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Ajay Gulati ld.counsel for the complainant and Sh.Vaneet Mittal ld.counsel for OPs-City Financial and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file. 7. During the course of arguments, Sh.Ajay Gulati ld.counsel for the complainant has conceded that the OPs-City Financial has returned the cheque of Rs.4255.76 to the complainant. He has also conceded that the OPs-City Financial has also returned the documents i.e. sale deed, blank cheques etc. and issued No Due Certificate to the complainant. Ld.counsel for both the parties made their statements mentioning the same. Hence, the claim of the complainant with regard to receipt of Rs.4255.76 and aforesaid documents stands satisfied. 8. So far as the question of compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and agony is concerned, admittedly the OPs-City Financial has returned the amount of Rs.4255.76 and aforesaid documents during the course of pendancy of this complaint. We hold that the ends of justice would be met if OPs-City Financial pay Rs.2000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and agony to the complainant beside litigation expenses. 9. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has merit and the same is accepted. OPs-City Financial is directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and agony beside Rs.500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. (Bhupinder Kaur) (J.S.Chawla) Member President Announced in Open Forum. Dated:09.05.2008.
