Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/738/2014

Satish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

J.K. Babbar

07 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/738/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	10/11/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	07/07/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Satish Kumar (Sr. Citizen) son of Shri G.R. Arora, resident of House No.32, Ward No.1, Dashmesh Nagar, Sector 15, Kharar.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

 

(1)  Fullerton India Credit Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, SCO 141-142, First Floor, Sector           8-C, Chandigarh.

 

(2)  Fullerton India Credit Company Limited, through its Managing Director, Regd. Office at Megh Towers, Third Floor, Old No.307, New No.165, Poonamallee High Road, Maduravoyal, Chennai – 600095 (Tamil Nadu).

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

MRS. SURJEET KAUR           MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. J.K. Babbar, Advocate.
For OPs	:	Sh. Puneet Tuli, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          The facts which are necessary for the adjudication of the present Complaint are conceptualized hereinafter. The Complainant purchased a Honda Twister motor cycle in October, 2010, which was financed by the Opposite Parties at Chandigarh and Bank Draft of the amount after deducting the down payment was directly remitted by the Opposite Parties to the Dealer from where the motor cycle in question was purchased by the Complainant. The loan account no.6220200026550 was given by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant and the installments of Rs.1525/- per month was being deducted by the Opposite Parties directly from the Saving Bank account of the Complainant maintained with State Bank of Patiala, Kharar Branch through ECS. It has been averred that on some occasions, inspite of maintaining of sufficient balance by the Complainant in his account, the ECS presented by the Opposite Parties with the Complainant’s Bankers were bounced as the same were not presented by Opposite Parties on time. Sometimes, the ECS clearance was presented earlier to date or sometimes after the dates given to the Complainant. Even after this, the Complainant was regularly paying the installments to the Opposite Parties in cash against which the representative of the Opposite Parties have given cash receipts to the Complainant (Annexure C-3 to C-10). When the loan amount was about to finish and only 5-6 installments were remaining towards the Complainant, the Opposite Parties stopped deducting the installment amount from the Saving Bank account of the Complainant through ECS showing their inability due to some technical reasons and requested the Complainant to make the payment of remaining installments in cash only. Acting upon this request of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant deposited the installments for the months of December, 2012 to June, 2013 @ Rs.1525/- each in cash against the receipts. It has been alleged that even after paying the entire loan amount in installments to the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties are not issuing “No Due Certificate” to the Complainant inspite of various requests and personal visits. The Complainant requires the NOC for removal of the hypothecation from the R.C. and for issuance of the fresh R.C. It has been further alleged that the Complainant is getting threatening calls from the Chandigarh office of the Opposite Parties as well as their Agents for depositing Rs.15,000/- as outstanding loan amount, but the Opposite Parties have till date failed to supply the loan account statement and the calculations of the amount outstanding to the Complainant inspite of various requests. Eventually, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 05.03.2014 upon the Opposite Parties (Annexure C-11), but in vain. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party tantamount to deficiency in service the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Parties, in their written version have  admitted that the Complainant has availed a loan facility from them. The same was repayable in installments of Rs.1525/- per month and the Complainant had issued the debit instructions from his Bank account and a promise that the same shall be encashed on presentation. It has been pleaded that the ECS were presented on the due dates. Some of the ECS have been bounced on presentation and hence the answering Opposite Parties are entitled to take bouncing charges as well as late payment charges thereof. The Complainant was very well aware of the bouncing of the ECS and hence he paid some of the installments in cash. The credit account statement in respect of the loan account of the Complainant is annexed as Annexure R1. It has been denied that when only 5 to 6 installments were remaining, the answering Opposite Parties stopped deducting the installment amount from the saving bank account of the Complainant through ECS. In fact, the ECS were presented and the same were bounced. The installments as has been paid by the Complainant in cash have not been deposited by him on the due dates. It has been asserted that no due certificate cannot be issued till the complete loan amount due to the Opposite Parties is cleared by the Complainant. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties have been controverted.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant and perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Complainant, as well as Opposite Parties.

 

7.     After a careful scrutiny of the file, it is observed that the loan amount was payable by the Complainant in installments to the Opposite Parties. It is also observed that the ECS were not presented in time by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant’s Bank and hence, they were bounced. There was sufficient balance in the saving bank account of the Complainant.

 

8.     The Bank Statement at Annexure C-2(Pg.13) shows that throughout sufficient balance has been maintained by the Complainant showing no reason as to why some of the ECS were bounced.

 

9.     The Opposite Parties have miserably failed to furnish the information to the Complainant about bouncing of the Cheques. Opposite Parties have also failed to furnish the details of monthly statement of accounts to the Complainant. However, it is observed that installments paid in cash have not been deposited by the Complainant on due dates and deserve to be dealt with in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan.

10.     We have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties. But the same are not applicable to the case, because the present Complaint does not involve reconciliation of accounts. The only question to be determined is whether the Opposite Parties are entitled to interest on the delayed payment. There are only 16 entries in Annexure C-2 relating to the transaction which have been scrutinized by this Forum. No voluminous evidence is involved in this case. 

 

11.     We are of the view that there has been no delay on the part of the Complainant in paying the installments by Cheques, as sufficient balance was maintained every month in the savings bank account of the Complainant. If any delay has occurred that was on the part of the Opposite Parties in presenting the ECS.  There is thus definite negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the Opposite Parties, for which the Complaint needs to be allowed partly.

 

12.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly & severally, directed to:-

[a]  To supply up-to-date statement of loan account to the Complainant, taking the above observations into account, within 15 days of receipt of copy of this order; and upon receipt of the statement of loan account, the Complainant shall make the payment of due amount, if any, forthwith;

 

[b]  To supply the ‘No Due Certificate’ of the motor cycle to the Complainant after receipt of the due amount from the Complainant, if any;

 

[c]  To pay Rs.7,500/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[d] To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

13.     The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [c] above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, besides complying with the directions as in sub-para [a] & [b] above. 

 

14.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

07^th July, 2015                                       

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

           Sd/-       

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

“Dutt”                                                                                            MEMBER