Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/2

Jaspal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Fullerton India Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sohan Singh Sohal, Adv

15 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                               Consumer Complaint No. : 2 of 01.01.2015

                                 Date of decision               : 18.06.2015

 

Jaspal Singh, son of Sh. Ram Partap, resident of Q. No.207, Type III, Power Colony, Rupnagar.

                                                                             ......Complainant

 

                                             Versus

 

Fullerton India Bank (Branch No. 545) through its Branch Manager, SCO 33, Ground Floor, Beant Singh Aman Nagar, Rupnagar.

                                                                            ....Opposite Party

 

                                        Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                           Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             MRS. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

Sh. Sohan Singh Johal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant

Sh. Devinder Singh Dara Advocate, counsel for the Opposite Party

 

 

ORDER

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Jaspal Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.P.’) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To issue the NOC to him and to get removed his name from the defaulter list of CIBIL,

ii)      To pay Rs.90,000/- as compensation on account of unnecessary mental agony & harassment caused to him,

iii)     To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of complaint,

                                      or

          to grant any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.

 

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 20.01.2010, he had obtained a loan of Rs.63,500/- from the O.P, which was to be repaid in  monthly installments of Rs.2856/- each for 48 months. He had paid the installments regularly. Earlier he was making the payment through his bank account maintained with HDFC Bank, Rupnagar, but lateron, as per advice of the O.P., he used to deposit the installments amount, in cash, through its employee, who used to collect the same from him. He had repaid the whole amount of the loan, along with interest, which was adjudged by the O.P. as Rs.1,37,67/-. He had paid the last installment on 28.02.2014, amounting Rs.2750/-, as the collecting person of the O.P. told him that only amount to that extent was recoverable from him, meaning thereby that the final payment of the loan amount due was made by him on 28.02.2014. Therefore, he asked the O.P. to issue him the NOC, but he was told that it would be sent to him, after one month as the same was to be issued by the Head office of the Bank. Inspite of several requests made by him, the O.P. has not issued the NOC. However, as his son was to go abroad, when he had gone to the State Bank of Patiala, Rupnagar, to obtain loan, on 17.12.2014, he was told by the Manager of the said bank that the loan cannot be sanctioned to him as his name stands listed in the defaulter list of CIBIL and an amount of Rs.69/- is standing due against him. He, then approached the O.P., who told him that an amount of Rs.10,491/- was standing due against him. On 17.12.2014 itself, he got issued the statement of his loan account from the O.P., in which it had shown due, an amount of Rs.69/- as principal and Rs.104.28/- as penal interest, thus, in total, an amount of Rs.173.28/- was shown due against him, but the O.P. is now demanding Rs.10,491/- from him illegally & forcibly and has refused to issue him the NOC and to remove his name from the CIBIL. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                On being put to notice, the O.P. filed written statement, taking preliminary objections; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present case, as there is recital in clause No.4 of the loan agreement entered into between the complainant and the O.P. to the effect that if there is any dispute with regard to the loan between the parties to the agreement, then in that event, the matter shall be settled by the arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; that the complainant has filed the present complaint to gain undue enrichment from the O.P. and is trying to mislead this Forum; that the contents of the complaint are false, frivolous and vexatious in nature, as such, the same is neither tenable in the eyes of law nor on facts and should be dismissed in limini and that the complainant has suppressed several material facts from this Forum and has not come with clean hands. On merits, the factum of obtaining of loan amount by the complainant from the O.P., as pleaded in the complaint has been admitted. It is stated that the installment of loan was payable on 5^th day of every month. The first installment was due on 5^th March,2010 and the last installment was due on 05.02.2014. The complainant was never regular in payment of installment amount. The cheques issued by him during the period 05.08.2010 to 05.12.2010 were dishonoured, and thereafter, he had closed his bank account. The answering O.P. had never advised him to deposit the installments in cash. It was specifically agreed by him in the agreement that he would pay Rs.250/- for delayed payment charges per month, Rs.300/- as cheque bouncing charges and Rs.300/- per collection charges, which are still outstanding. The terms & conditions of the loan agreement are binding upon the parties and the Consumer Forum cannot modify the same. The NOC cannot be issued to the complainant as the cheques bouncing charges and late payment charges are still outstanding against him. It is further stated that the CIBIL Credit Report is a factual record of customer’s credit payment history compiled from information received from different credit grantors. Credit Grantors are leading Banks, financial institutions, State Financial Corporations, Non-Banking Financial Companies, Housing Finance Companies, Credit Card Companies, who are Members of CIBIL. The CIBIL has the information of credit payment history of the complainant regarding the loan taken and the history of the repayments of loan made by him. The said payment history cannot be changed either by the answering O.P. or by anybody else. An amount of Rs.10491/- is still outstanding against the complainant on account of cheque bouncing charges and late payment charges. There is, thus, no deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.P. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof with heavy compensatory costs.

 

4.                On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant &photocopies of documents Ex.C1 to C3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. tendered affidavit of Sh. Mohit Jain, authorized representative, Ex. OP-1, photocopies of documents Ex. OP-2 to Ex. OP-6 and closed the evidence.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the file carefully.

 

6.                At the very outset, the counsel for the O.P. raised objection that the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable before this Forum, because in clause No. 4 of the Loan Agreement (Ex.OP-2), it is categorically mentioned that if there is any dispute with regard to loan between the parties to the agreement then in that event matter shall be settled by the arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that being a consumer, the instant complaint is maintainable, because the remedy provided under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy and the objection raised by the O.P. that this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum is baseless. 

 

7.                We find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the complainant. Section 3 of the Act, reads as under:-

“3. Act not in derogation of any other law—The provisions

     of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of

     the provisions of any other law for the time being in

     force.”

 

In view of the above said provisions made under the Act, the objection raised by the counsel for the O.P. is meritless and the instant complaint filed by the complainant is held to be maintainable. In the case ‘Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (Ded) through L.R. & Ors.’ I (2004) CPJ 1 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the remedy under the Act has been provided in addition to other remedies provided under other Acts unless there is clear bar to jurisdiction. It has been further held that merely because the rights and liabilities are created between the Members and the Management of the Society under the Act, it cannot take away or exclude the jurisdiction conferred on the Forums under the Act, expressly and intentionally. Reliance is also placed on the case decided by our own Hon’ble State Commission titled as ‘Mukhtiar Singh vs. Malwinder Singh Battu and Others’ reported in 2011 (2) CLT 635.

 

8.                 Now coming to the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant had paid all the installments for the loan obtained by him on 20.01.2010 for a sum of Rs.63,500/- from the O.P. and the last installment was paid on 28.02.2014. The person who came for collection of the installment amount from him told him that nothing is due against him qua the loan amount taken by him from the O.P. Thereafter, he requested the employee of the O.P. to issue NOC, who told him that since the NOC was to be issued by the Head Office, therefore, the same would be sent to him after one month, but the same was never sent to him. Since he had cleared the entire loan amount to the O.P. On 17.12.2014, when he approached the State Bank of Patiala, for obtaining loan from it, for sending his son abroad for study purposes. The Manager of the said bank told him that the bank is unable to sanction the loan amount to him as his name stands listed in the defaulter list of CIBIL as an amount of Rs.69/- is due against him. Thereafter, he approached the O.P. whose employee told him that a sum of Rs.10,491/-  was standing due against him.  On 17.12.2014, he got issued a copy of statement of his loan account (Ex. C3) from the O.P. In the said statement, under the head ‘Pay Details’, a total sum of Rs.173.28/- has been shown due against him, i.e. a sum of Rs.69/- as principal amount and a sum of Rs.104.28/- as penal interest. He further submitted that had the concerned person, who had come to collect the last installment from the complainant in respect of the above said loan amount, told him that any further amount of Rs.173.28 was still due, he must have paid the same there & then, the same being a meager amount. The above said act & conduct of the O.P. amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, the complaint filed by him be allowed and the O.P. be directed to remove his name from the defaulter list of CIBIL & issue him NOC. The O.P. be also directed to pay him compensation alongwith litigation expenses, as prayed for in the complaint.

 

9.                In rebuttal, the counsel for the O.P. submitted that the complainant had never paid the installments in time and many times, the cheques issued by him got dishonored due to “insufficient funds”. As such, NOC cannot be issued to him because the cheque bouncing charges and late payments charges to the tune of Rs.10,491/- are still outstanding against him. He further submitted that the CIBIL credit report is a factual record of customer’s credit payment history compiled from information received from different credit grantors. The CIBIL has the information of credit payment history of the complainant regarding the loan taken and the history of the repayments of loan made by him. The payment history cannot be changed either by the answering O.P. or by anybody else. Even otherwise, the complainant has not still cleared his loan account, therefore, no request can be made by it to the CIBIL for removal of his name from the defaulter list. Accordingly, the complaint is liable to be dismissed, with heavy cost.

 

10.              The complainant has specifically alleged in the complaint that the O.P. is demanding an amount of Rs.10491/-, stating the same to be due from him against his loan account, whereas in the statement of his loan account issued by the O.P. on 17.12.2014, it had shown the total due amount as Rs.173.28 i.e. Rs.69/- as principal amount + Rs.104.28 as penal interest. The O.P. has also specifically written in para No. 8 of the written version that Rs.10491/- are outstanding against the complainant on account of cheque bouncing charges and late payment charges, but no details have been produced on record , as to how the O.P. has calculated that a sum of  Rs.10491/- is still outstanding from him. From the perusal of the statement of account dated 17.12.2014, produced on record by the complainant as Ex.C3 and by the O.P. as Ex. OP-6, it is evident that a sum of Rs.69/- has been shown as “Installment Amount Overdue’ and another sum of Rs.104.28 has been shown as the “Penal Interest”, thus, the total amount due against the complainant comes to Rs.173.28 only upto 17.12.2014, (the date on which the said statement of account was issued by the O.P.). Alongwith the statement of account ( Ex. OP-6), the O.P.  has also produced “Bounce Cheque Details”. While going through the same, it has been found that the said bounce charges relate to the period from 05.10.2010 to 8.1.2011 only and the same have already been charged by the O.P. on the relevant dates in the aforesaid statement of account. Thus, upto 17.12.2014, in total the complainant was to pay an amount of Rs.173.28 only i.e. the principal amount + penal interest thereon. Thus, the plea of the O.P. that Rs.10491/- are still outstanding against the complainant, on account of cheque bouncing charges & late payment charges, is rejected, being without any force and the O.P. by raising the demand to that extent has committed deficiency in rendering service to the complainant, due to which the complainant must have suffered mental agony & physical harassment for which the O.P. is liable to compensate him in terms of money.

 

11.              So far as the grievance of the complainant that the O.P. has not issued him NOC and his name has been entered in defaulter list of the CIBIL, inspite of the fact that he had cleared all dues against his loan account, is concerned, it may be stated that since some amount is still due to be paid by him and unless he pays the same, NOC cannot be issued by the O.P. and even the O.P. cannot be directed to get his name deleted from the defaulter list of CIBIL.

 

12.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, we partly allow the complaint and direct the O.P. in the following manner:-

                   i)       To issue NOC to the complainant and get his name

                             deleted from the defaulter list of CIBIL, as & when he

                             deposits the          amount of Rs.173.28, due against his loan

                             account upto 17.12.2014, alongwith further penal

                             interest admissible for the period from 18.12.2014 till

date of payment,

 

ii)      To pay him Rs.5000/- as compensation,

 

iii)     To pay him Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses.

 

 

          The O.P. is further directed to pay the compensation amount & litigation expenses, as directed above, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

 

13.              The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 18.06.2015                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                    MEMBER.