Delhi

North East

CC/46/2023

Sh. Rakesh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dhani Loans And Services Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

12 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 46/23

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Rakesh Sharma S/o Sh. Om Prakash Sharma R/o H.No. D 255, St. No. 1, Near Ganpati Apartment, Ashok Nagar, Shahdara Delhi 110093		Complainant
		Versus
	1.         2.	Dhani Loans and Services Ltd. Concept Tech Park Building Plot No. 422, B Phase IV Gurugram, 122016 (Deleted)   Kotak Mahindra Bank Yamuna Vihar, Delhi 110053		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		23.02.23 28.08.24 12.11.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Opposite Parties.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Complainant has taken loan of Rs. 23,000/- from Opposite Party No.1 in May 2019 and the said amount was transferred to his account in Opposite Party No.2 bank in my account. Thereafter, on 16.09.21 Complainant has repaid the total loan amount to Opposite Party No.1 and secured No Objection Certificate from Opposite Party No.1. It is alleged that despite the fact that Complainant has paid the whole amount with interest on time, Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Kotak Mahindra Bank forcefully deducted Rs. 22,479/- from Complainant’s account and when Complainant visited and met with the manager, he refused to refund the same. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed for Rs. 22,479/- and Rs. 10,000/- for mental harassment.
2. Both the Opposite Parties were served with notice and entered appearances. However, during the pendency of proceedings, at the request of Complainant, the name of the Opposite Party No.1 was deleted from the array of the parties vide order dated 10.01.24.

Case of the Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Kotak Mahindra Bank

3. The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement. Opposite Party No.2 while admitting to have allocated subject savings Bank account to the Complainant, submitted that the Complainant at the time of opening of the said bank account agreed to abide by the terms of the MITC (Most Important Terms and Conditions) and GSFC (General Schedule of features and charges for 811 account). It is contended that the Complainant has actively concealed the material fact that for the period of May 2020 to October 2021, various ECS of the said bank account of the Complainant got bounced and the answering Opposite Party bank has levied the charges for ECS return as per envisaged terms of the abovementioned MITC and GSFC. It was further contended that the statement of account shows that the Complainant was not maintaining sufficient balance in the account from May 2020 till February 2023 that is why there was outstanding ECS return charges for the period May 2020 to September 2021. The account of the Complainant was funded in February 2023, thereafter answering Opposite Party bank deducted the charges in March 2023. It is reiterated that the total ECS bounce charges Rs. 15,991/- has already been recovered by the answering Opposite Party bank and thereafter remaining charges were also deducted by answering Opposite Party in June 2023. In view of above, it is submitted that the charges levied by the Opposite Party bank is as per the agreed upon terms and the Complainant has failed to disclose any deficiency in service of the Opposite Party bank.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

 

 

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.2

5. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No. 2 filed affidavit of Sh. Yogesh Kumar, Authorized Signatory of Opposite Party No.2, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.2 have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Complainant in person and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by Opposite Party No.2.
7. The case of the Complainant that the Complainant had taken loan of Rs. 23,000/- from Opposite Party No.1 in May 2019 and the said amount has been repaid to Opposite Party No.1 and secured No Objection Certificate from Opposite Party. It is alleged that despite the fact that Complainant has paid the whole amount with interest on time, Opposite Party No.2 i.e. Kotak Mahindra Bank forcefully deducted Rs. 22,479/- from Complainant’s account and when Complainant visited and met with the manager, he refused to refund the same.
8. On the other hand, the defence of Opposite Party No.2 is that the Complainant has actively concealed the material fact that for the period of May 2020 to October 2021, various ECS of the said bank account of the Complainant got bounced and the answering Opposite Party bank has levied the charges for ECS return as per envisaged terms of the abovementioned MITC and GSFC to which the Complainant agreed at the time of opening the subject account. It was further contended that Complainant was not maintaining sufficient balance in the account from May 2020 till February 2023 that is why there was outstanding ECS return charges for the period May 2020 to September 2021. The account of the Complainant was funded in February 2023; thereafter answering Opposite Party bank deducted the charges in March 2023.
9. The Opposite Party No.2 bank relied upon inter alia the copy of statement of Complainant’s account, copy of MITC (Most Important Terms and Conditions) and GSFC (General Schedule of features and charges for 811 account) in support of its case.
10. Perusal of the statement of account shows that various ECS cheques were returned and as per the agreement, there were charges to be levied. It is also clear from the account statement that the Complainant was not maintaining sufficient balance till February 2023 and the account of the Complainant was funded in February 2023, thereafter answering Opposite Party bank deducted the charges in March 2023. The perusal of pleadings shows that the Complainant has not rebutted any of the contentions while the Opposite Party  No.2 has established its case in defence.
11. In view of above facts and discussion, we find that the charges levied by the Opposite Party bank is as per the agreed upon terms and the Complainant has failed to disclose any deficiency in service of the Opposite Party bank.
12.  Thus , the present complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
13. Order announced on 12.11.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)              Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President