IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 15thday of February, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
C CNo. 15/2020 (filed on 18-01-2020)
Petitioner : Scaria Abraham,
S/o. Abraham,
Koonanikal, Olassa P.O.
Kottayam.
(Adv. Vinu Jacob Mathew)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd.
H.D.F.C. Bank House,
SenapatiBapatmarg,
Lower Parel (West)
Mumbai – 400013.
2) H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd.
Ceebros Building,
#Nelson Manickam Road,
Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600029.
3) H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd.
VettoorBuidling,
Sastri Road, Kottayam – 686 001.
(For Op 1-3, Adv. V.K. Sathyavan Nair
and Adv. Saji S. Nair)
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
The complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows,
The complainant had availed a vehicle loan with loan no.22553160 from the 3rd opposite party on 10-10-2012. The loan amount was Rs.2,76,000/-. The EMI to be remitted was Rs.6,210/- for a total period of 60 months. The opposite party collected 62 postdated cheques from the complainant and it was intimated that the payment date for the EMI will be 7th of every month. The procedure was that the opposite party will sent SMSto the mobile number 9539076310 of the complainant in advance stating that the cheque for the month will be presented on a particular day requesting the complainant to arrange fund in the Bank account for honoring cheque.
On 12-10-2017, a notice was issued by the opposite party stating that a cheque for the EMI of March 2015 was dishonored. Complainant approached CDRF Kottayam and filed OP No.155/2015 against the opposite parties. The complaint was allowed in favour of the complainant and opposite parties paid the cost ordered by the Forum.
Thereafter also opposite parties were collecting the EMI from the complainant’s accounts. On 27-04-2019, the complaint received a letter from the opposite party stating that the complainant defaulted the payment and there exists an outstanding liability of Rs.9,486.02/- and directed to pay the duty directly. There was no default from the part of the complainant in payment of EMI’s. The complainant was regularly remitting the amount and keeping the balance in the account to honor the cheques produced by the opposite party. Except the 57thinstallment all the EMIs had been collected without default by the opposite party. The cheque for the said installment also was with the opposite party. Even on the request made by the complainant opposite party was not ready to present the cheque or to return the same or to give an understanding that they will not use the cheque. The complainant is entitled to set no objection certificate and get cancelled the H.P. noted in the R.C. book. Hence this complaint.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared and filed a joint version.
As per the version of the opposite parties, the complainant had taken the vehicle loan with No.22553160 for an amount of Rs.2,76,000/-. The complainant had agreed to remit EMO of Rs.6,210/- on 7th of every month till 07-09-2017. The total repayment period is 60 months. The complainant failed to make the payment which is due on 07-07-2017. The complainant is liable to pay Rs.10,976/- to clear the dues in the loan account. There is no default on the part of the opposite parties in collecting the 57thinstallment. 57thinstallment bounced due to the fault on the part of the complainant. Complainant had given postdated cheque which could not be encashed for the 57thinstallment and hence the opposite party could not present the cheque for collection. The opposite party had informed the complainant to pay the 57th EMI directly or provide alternate cheque in place of the postdated cheque. Despite that the complainant neither replaced the cheque nor paid the 57thinstallment. Upon clearance of all dues, the opposite party is ready and willing to issue NOC to the complainant.
Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Ext.A1 to A9. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked documents Ext.B1 to B5.
On going through the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and version of the opposite party and evidence adduced by both the parties, we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider point No.1 and 2 together.
Point no 1 and 2
The complainant’s allegations are that he had availed a vehicle loan on 10.10.12 for an EMI of Rs.6210/- and had been paying regularly without any default and in the meanwhile the opposite party sent a legal notice by alleging that one of the cheque given by the complainant was bounced on 9.3.15 which was according to the complainant was presented against the prior intimation given as the same would be presented on 10.3.15. Thereafter the opposite party started collecting penal charges for the dues. The complainant filed a complaint before this commission which was allowed in favour of the complainant finding that the presentation of said cheque before the intimated date was an unfair trade practice.
Now in the case on hand the complainant alleges that the opposite party has
again came up with a story of cheque dishonour and they are demanding repayment of Rs.9,486 being the outstanding due in the vehicle loan. The opposite party alleges that they could not present the cheque for the 57th instalment as it was post-dated. The opposite parties themselves admit in the
proof affidavit that the complainant had given post-dated cheque whereas in the same affidavit they swear that they had never received 62 cheques from the complainant. Exhibit A1 is the copy of the pass book of the complainant’s account which shows that on 5.07.17 there was Rs. Rs.7,271.50/- in his account. This itself shows that the complainant was keen on keeping the sufficient balance in his account for honouring the cheques which would be presented by the opposite parties. As per Exhibit A3 notice issued by the opposite party on 27.4.19, demanding the repayment of Rs.9,486.02 /- being the outstanding due.
According to opposite party the said amount accrued because the 57 th instalment was not collected by them as they could not produce the cheque as it was post-dated. From the A1 pass book it is clear that all the 56 EMIs were collected through cheque by the opposite parties. But from the Exhibit B4 loan account statement produced by the opposite parties it is recorded as ‘payment received’ against 06/07/2017, though against the same date another entry as ‘instalment bounced also is recorded’. No sufficient explanation is seen given by the opposite party regarding this. If the cheque was not presented, how did the opposite party entered as payment received.
From exhibit A1 pass book of the complainant it is evident that all the EMIs were being collected vide the cheques presented by the complainant and the complainant had managed to keep sufficient amount in his account on 5.7.17.It is the duty of the opposite party to present the cheque on correct date and collect money. If the cheque was dishonoured, the opposite party would have got a right to claim the money. Instead the opposite party is raising lame excuses as Thus it can be inferred that the opposite parties wilfully did not present the cheque in the complainant’s bank. This is an unfair trade practice and the opposite party is not entitled to charge any overdue charges over the created liability and is liable to compensate the complainant. Thus the complaint is allowed vide the following order:
1. The opposite party is directed not to take any coercive steps against the
complainant regarding the vehicle loan no 22553160.
2. The opposite party is directed to Issue No objection certify ate to the
complainant.
3. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the
complainant.
The Order shall be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order. If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry compensation amount will carry 6% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 15th day of February, 2022.
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant.
A1- Copy of passbook in the name of petitioner by Canara bank
A2 –Copy of Order in CC 155/2015 by CDRF Kottayam
A3 – Letter dtd.27-04-2019 by HDFC bank to petitioner
A4 – Reply letter dtd.30-05-2019 by Tharakan and George Associates
A5 series – Postal receipts (3 nos.)
A6 series – Postal acknowledgement cards (3 nos.)
A7 – Copy of complaint dtd.16-08-17 before Sub Inspector, West Police
Station, Kottayam.
A8- Petition receipt No.651/2017
A9 – CD
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Copy of resolution dtd. October 16, 2021 from HDFC Bank
B2 – Notarized copy of loan application form
B3 – Notarized copy of agreement for autoloan
B4 – Copy of loan account statement along with certificate by HDFC bank
B5 – Copy of Cheque dtd.07-07-2016 bearing no.259547
By Order
Assistant Registrar
