Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

105/2013

M.S.Subramanaiam, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deutsche Bank, - Opp.Party(s)

Party In Person

17 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM
CHENNAI(NORTH)
 
Complaint Case No. 105/2013
 
1. M.S.Subramanaiam,
RTI Activist, Consumer Protection Activist, & Social Worker, Sri Lakshmi Apartments, Flat-1,9, Park Avenue, Kesav Perumalpuram, Greenways Rd, Ch-28
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Deutsche Bank,
114, Kothari Building, Ground Floor, Opp.Taj Coromandal Hotel) Nungambakkam High Rd, Ch-34.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Mr.K.JAYABALAN.,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT
  Mrs.T.KALAIYARASI.,B.A.,B.L., MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

                                                          Complaint presented on  :  14.05.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on     : 17.03.2015

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

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

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,         :    PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,         :       MEMBER II

 

TUESDAY THE 17th DAY OF MARCH  2015

 

C.C.NO.105/2013

 

 

   M.S.Subramaniam,

   RTI Activist, Consumer Protection Activist & Social Worker,

   Sri Lakshmi Apartments,

   Flat-1 9 Park Avenue, Kesavperumalpuram

   Greenways Road,

   Chennai – 600 028.                                                              ..  Complainant

..Vs..

 

The Manager,

Deuts che Bank,

114, Kothari Building, Ground floor,

(Opposite Taj CorAMANDAL Hotel)

Nungambakkam High Road,

Chennai -34.

 

  

 

  … Opposite party

 

Date of complaint         :        17.05.2013

For Complainant           :         Mr.Subramaniyan, (Party in person)

For Opposite party 1     :         M/s.  Sai Krishnan  Associates,

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,

 

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

 

The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:

1.The Complainant  applied a Personal loan with the Opposite party . Before disbursement of loan, the complainant approached the Opposite party for statement and a copy of agreement. The Opposite party  dragging the Complainant  and have not supplied the same. Further instead of sending the copy of the agreement, the Opposite party sent a statement  of payment for a year. However till  date the copy of agreement was not supplied to the Complainant. On perusal of the statement there is glaring variations in principle and interest and asked for explanation  from the Opposite party. Since the Complainant yet to receive favorable response from the Opposite party  the Complainant  filed this Complaint praying to direct the Opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000 and also direct the Opposite party to furnish copy of the agreement and other details required by the Complainant point by point and render justice.

 

 

WRITTEN VERSION IN BRIEF:

          2.The Opposite party  carrying on Baking operations with various facilities to the customers  and one such facility is that to disburse personal loan to the eligible customers. The Opposite party disposed the loan amount of Rs.2,06,711/-(Two lakhs six thousand seven hundred and eleven only). The Opposite party denies that the, failed to respond to the letters and mail communication of the complainant. The complainant  was paying the EMI amount on the due dates till March 2013. It is the Complainant who had approached and applied for a personal loan and disbursed by the Opposite party  on 19.07.2008. After March 2013, the Complainant defaulted in paying the monthly dues. Therefore charges and penalties are levied as per the baking rules. The Complainant  never approached any appropriate person in the bank requesting  for the details of the said outstanding dues in the loan account  and not produced any evidence to support his allegation. The conduct of not making payments deliberately to the Opposite party establishes the dishonest intention of the Complainant. Therefore the Opposite party have not committed any negligence or  deficiency in service as alleged by the Complaint. Hence the Complainant is liable to dismissed.

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether the Opposite party committed Deficiency in service?

          2.To what relief the Complainant  is entitled in the petition?

POINT:1

          4.It is an admitted fact that the Complainant availed a personal loan  and the  Opposite party also sanctioned a sum of Rs.2,06,711/- towards the same and the Complainant also repaid the EMI towards  the said loan for certain period.

          5.Ex A1 evidences that the Complainant  applied personal loan with the Opposite party for a sum of Rs.2,06,711/-(Two lakhs six thousand seven hundred and eleven only) and the same was sanctioned and also disbursed and the balance outstanding as an 2.04.2011 is 1.19,608. As per Ex A1 Complainant also paid installments till 5.3.2011. Further, Opposite party also issued Ex A2 letter dated 11.11.2012 to the Complainant , requesting him to pay the outstanding amount to them.

          6.The grievance of the complainant in the complaint is that he asked  the Opposite party  to  furnish a copy of the agreement  and till filing this Complaint  they had not furnished the same and further on going through the statement,  the Complainant observed that there is glaring variations in principle and interest amounts and for which he asked for explanation  and he is yet to receive  a favorable reply and therefore the Opposite party committed deficiency in service.

          7.The Complainant has not filed any other document to prove that the Opposite party  to furnish the copy of the agreement and explanation in respect of variations in the statement. Further the Complainant had not stated to whom he had approached in the bank for such details. Therefore the  Complainant has not proved that he had approached the Opposite party for asking particulars including agreement copy. As per Ex.A1 & A2 the Complainant is due to pay the part of  loan amount to the Opposite party. Even in the written version the Opposite party stated that now the Complainant is due to pay a sum of Rs.39,995.41.(Rupees thirty nine thousand nine hundred ninety five and forty one paisa only)When the Complainant himself is due to pay part of loan amount to the Opposite party, he cannot fasten liability on the Opposite party that they have committed Deficiency in service .  As it is concluded that the Complainant has not approached the Opposite party, for particulars and he is also due to pay loan amount, it is held that the Opposite party   had not committed Deficiency in service.

POINT :2

          8. Since it is held in point no 1 that the Opposite party had not committed deficiency in service, the Complainant is not entitled  for any relief in this Complaint.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed without cost.  

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and  pronounced by us on this 17th day of March 2015. 

MEMBER – II                                                    PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 Dated 1.4.2010 to 31.03.2011       Statement.

Ex. A2 Dated 11.11.2012                            Letter forum Opposite Party.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITY PARTY:

Ex.B1 Dated 31.07.2012                  E.mail Communication

Ex.B2 Dated 02.08.2012                            E.mail Communication

Ex.B3 Dated 05.12.2012                            E.mail Communication

Ex.B4 Dated 07.01.2013                            E.mail Communication

Ex.B5              NIL                           Amortization Schedule

Ex.B6              NIL                           Loan Application Forum

Ex.B7             NIL                            Loan Agreement

Ex.B8               NIL                          Statement of Accounts

 

MEMBER –II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 
 
[ Mr.K.JAYABALAN.,B.SC.,B.L.,]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Mrs.T.KALAIYARASI.,B.A.,B.L.,]
MEMBER

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.