Date of filing   :   30.03.2016

                                                                                  Date of transfer :27.06.2022

                                                                              Date of order: 18.10.2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE

PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L.   PRESIDENT

                THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.Sc., B.L.                 MEMBER – I

        SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A.,  MEMBER-II

TUESDAY THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINANT NO. 77/2022

1. D. Kaviyarasu,

Son of D. Dhanaseakaran

No. 50/27b, Thirupathi Nagar,

4th Main Road, Kolathur,

Chennai – 600 099.   

2.Dhanasekaran,

   Son of Duraiswamy,

3. Dhanalakshmi,

    W/o. D. Dhanasekaran,

4. D. Janakiraman

    Son of D. Dhanasekaran

2 to 4 residing at

No. 50/27B, Thirupathi Nagar,

4th Main Road, Kolathur,

Chennai – 600 099.                                                         ...Complainants

-Vs-

The George Town Co-op Bank Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager, 

No. 62/2, Krishnappa Agraharam Street,

Sowcarpet,

Chennai – 600 079.                                                         ...Opposite party

For the complainant         :   Party in person Tr.D.Daviyarasu

Counsel for opposite party            :   Thiru.M. Ravibharathi 

ORDER

THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A.,B.L. PRESIDENT

    This complaint has been filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complainant has prayed this Hon’ble Commission to direct opposite to return the interest amount and also to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-  for financial loss, unwanted stress suffered due to the negligence of the opposite party.

1.The case of the complaint is briefly as follows:

    The complainant got Mortgage Loan from the George Town Co-op Bank for the sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs) on 07.11.2015.  Loan account No. i.e. LT29. The complainant had given the cheque for repayment for the Mortgage Loan, for the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) on a monthly basis.  The complainant submitted twelve cheques to the Bank to be deposited every month for the cheque date 20.12.2015 to 20.11.2016.  First cheque was returned to the Bank (cheque bounce) due to Non Cheque Truncation System.  Bank failed to intimate regarding the same.  In the month of January the same cheque was passed and the payment has been debited from the bank account.  But the same was not brought in the ledger books of George Town Co-op Bank and in the complainant’s loan account.  The account was not debited and the monthly loan amount was left in his account. They verified and informed us there is no payment credited in his loan account till March.  When the complainant heard that the money was not taken for the loan repayment he was left in shock.  He could not come to the conclusion as to why they have not taken the money from the account and cleared the loan repayment until March.  The complainant verified with the bank staff who confirmed that there is no payment received till date of 28.02.2016.  Later when he verified with the SBI account details in the December month cheque was returned, January month cheque was passed on 27.01.2016 to the bank and February month cheque was also returned due to Non Cheque Truncation System. The complainant had paid Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand)  in person to the bank on 01.03.2016.  They had charged him with an interest of Rs.27,568/-  (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Five hundred and Sixty Eight)  for 115 days  and an extra interest of Rs.126 (Rupees One hundred and Twenty Six only).   There would not have been this much interest if they had taken the amount through the cheques provided.  The bank is purely responsible.  The negligence of the bank staff has led to pay interest on the customer.  Hence, this compliant.    

2. The written version of opposite party is as follows:

    The opposite party has sanctioned mortgage loan to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- to the second complainant on 12.10.2015. The complainant on 12.10.2015 executed mortgage deed in favor of opposite party. As per the mortgage deed the complainant has agreed to pay principal and interest Rs.20,000/- every month, the duration of installments was 84 months.  After the execution of mortgaged deed, the complainant has received the loan amount on 07.11.2015.  Hence, the complainant ought to have paid installment from November 2015 onwards.  The first complainant has given 6 cheques duly filled towards 6 installments starting from November 2015 to April 2016.  The opposite party deposited the cheques for collection, the cheque returned for the reason inward return (CTS).  Thereafter, the complainant on 01.03.2016 has paid Rs.40,000/- to the opposite party for which principal Rs.12,306/- and interest for 115 days is Rs.27,568/- and extra interest for 3 months Rs.126/- totally Rs.40,000/- adjusted towards his loan amount.  The complainant is suppressing all the real facts, actually he is defaulter in paying regular installment and blaming the opposite party their service is, insufficient.  In the said circumstances the Hon’ble District commission has to decide first Whether he is a consumer or not? What is meant by service?  as per the consumer protection act the complainant does not at all come under the purview of the consumer. Here the complainant mortgaged his property and availed mortgaged loan and handed over the loan amount to the complainant.  Thereafter the complainant should pay the principal plus interest regularly to the opposite party without any default.  Hereafter receipt of the mortgage loan the complainant has not paid proper installments amounts to the opposite parties.   It is duty of the complainant to pay the installments regularly but unfortunately the complainant cheques was dishonored by the complainant bank i.e. State bank of India.  It is not the fault of the opposite party. The complainant instead of blaming the State bank of India filed complaint against this opposite party before this Hon’ble Commission.  In the present complaint there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party.  The duty of borrower / complainant to pay the principal and interest by way of installments towards mortgage amount to the opposite party.  But the complainant failed to pay installment from November 2015, December 2015, January 2016 and February 2016.  Belatedly on 01.03.2016 complainant paid Rs.40,000/- by cash out of which Rs.27,568/- adjusted extra interest.  It is clearly shows that the complainant has defaulter of regular payment.  But he filed complaint against the opposite party for deficiency of service.   There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party on ground alone the complaint may be dismissed with limini.

3.    Proof affidavit of complainant filed, Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party filed.  No documents filed. Written argument of both sides filed.  Oral argument of complainant side heard.

4.The points that of arises for consideration are:

    1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite      

               party?

    2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint?

3. To what relief complainant is entitled to?

5. Point Nos. 1 & 2:    The complainants 2 to 4 mortgaged their property with the opposite party and availed a loan of Rs.7,00,000/- on 07.11.2015.  At the time of availing the loan they have given 12 cheques for the repayment of the aforesaid cheque to the opposite party.  The main allegation of the complainant is that the cheque given by the complainant was returned due to non-Cheque Truncations System (CTS) but the same was not informed by the opposite party in time to the complainant.  As a result, the complainant was forced to pay abnormal interest to the opposite party and thereby the opposite party illegally gained.  Therefore, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence, this complaint. The first opposite party in their written version categorically denied the allegation of the complainant and further the cheque was returned only because of non CTS cheque and therefore there is no illegality on the part of the opposite party and therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Further the opposite party also raised an objection.  Regarding the maintainability of this complaint as well loan was availed by the complainants as well as 2 to 4, but the complainant that alone filed the above said complaint therefore on this ground as well this complaint is liable to be dismissed. On perusal of the records filed by the complainant it was admitted fact that the complainant cheque was returned only due to non CTS cheque. Therefore, we are of the consider opinion that the opposite party is not responsible for the same.  Hence, the complainant did not prove that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, these Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered against complainant.

6. POINT NO.3:    In Point Nos.1 and 2, we have decided that the complainant has not proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any relief. This Point No.3 is also answered accordingly. 

7.    In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 18th October 2022.

     Sd/-                      Sd/-                      Sd/-

MEMBER-I                MEMBER – II             PRESIDENT

LIST OF COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1-03.11.2015 – Copy of certificate of encumbrance on property

Ex.A2-07.11.2015 - Copy of Loan Agreement

Ex.A3-22.02.2016 -  Copy of Cheque return slip 

Ex.A4-25.02.2016 -  Copy of Bank Pass book

Ex.A5-01.03.2016 -  Copy of payment challan

Ex.A6-01.03.2016 -  Copy of loan account pass book

Ex.A7-07.03.2016 -  Copy of letter was sent to the bank

Ex.A8-08.03.2016 -  Copy of letter received acknowledgement 

LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:                             -NIL-

     Sd/-                      Sd/-                      Sd/-

MEMBER-I                MEMBER – II             PRESIDENT