Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/39/2016

Murti Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Harmesh Lal - Opp.Party(s)

27 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.       :    39 of 27.04.2016

Date of Decision:                  :    27.07.2016

Murti Lal Son of Ram Kishan R/o House No. B10/199, Mohalla Ravidas Nagar, Nawanshahr Tehsil and District Nawanshahr.

                                                                             …Complainant

Versus

1. Harmesh Lal, Assistant Manager, Indusland Bank, Above Canara Bank, Banga Road, Nawanshahr.
2. Indusland Bank, Customer Finance Division, Banga Road, Above Canara Bank, Nawanshahr.
3. Manager, Indusland Bank, Above Canara Bank, Banga Road, Nawanshahr.

          …Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

MRS.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

ARGUED BY:

For complainant            :         In person.

For OPs                         :         Sh.P.S. Bakshi, Advocate

ORDER

MRS.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

Sh.Murti Lal has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs)

1.       In brief the case of the complainant that he purchased a hero maestro 110 CC for Rs.54867/- and got it financed from OP No.2 through OP No.1.  The detail of the finance amount is as under:-

Dated	Paid Amount	Dated	Paid Amount
07.01.2014	1890	01.01.2015	2780
07.02.2014	1890	07.01.2015	1890
07.03.2014	1890	31.01.2015	2340
07.04.2014	1890	31.03.2015	3780
07.05.2014	1890	30.05.2015	1890
07.06.2014	1890	07.06.2015	1890
30.06.2014	2340	07.07.2015	1890
07.07.2014	1890	31.07.2015	2000
07.08.2014	2000	07.08.2015	1890
08.08.2014	1890	18.08.2015	1900
30.08.2014	2500	31.08.2015	1890
07.09.2014	1890	07.09.2015	1890
30.09.2014	2520	30.10.2015	1500
29.10.2014	1890	15.10.2015	1000
07.11.2014	1890	31.12.2015	2000
10.11.2014	1900	01.02.2016	2000
07.12.2014	1890	30.11.2015	1500
01.02.2016	500	01.03.2016	1500
Total paid amount	32540	Total paid amount	35530

It is stated that he took loan of Rs.42700/- from OP No.2 and after including interest of Rs.14000/- for 30 months, he was to pay total amount of Rs.56700/-. He was required to pay Rs.1890/- per month in 30 installments.  It is stated that he paid about Rs.85,000/- to the OP No.2 before stipulated time.  Out of which he is in possession of receipts for Rs.68070/- and rest of receipts were lost. He had also paid some amount in cash but the OP No.2 did not deduct the said amount from his account.  Although, he had paid the amount in excess to the OPs yet they are demanding Rs.8497/- as outstanding amount. The OPs have served a legal notice dated 30.03.2016 upon him, stating therein that they were in possession of  blank cheques issued by him and if he would not pay the amount, then they would initiate proceeding under Section 138 against him and they also threaten him to repossesses his vehicle. It is further stated that the OPs cleverly have taken about Rs.20,000/- in excess from him.  Hence, they are deficient in providing service and prayed that OPs be directed to pay Rs.30,000/- taken in excess from him, and to return his cheques.  They be also directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of financial loss and mental agony suffered by him alongwith Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.       On being put to notice, OPs have filed joint written version. Taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not consumer under Consumer Protection Act ; no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file complaint again them. Infact the complainant has misconstrued the statement of loan account and he was apprised about the actual detail of the payment made by him but he intentionally in order to avoid making the payment has filed present complaint ; complainant has no locus standi; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; complainant has concealed the material facts and has not approached this Forum with the clean hands; the true fact of the case are that he entered into loan agreement PCS05422H with OP No.2 regarding purchase of Hero Maestro 110 CC Delux for a sum of Rs.42,700/- and he executed various security documents in favour of the OP No.2 for the repayment of loan.  The said loan amount of Rs.42,700/- was to be repaid by the complainant alongwith interest of Rs.14,000/-, in 30 equated monthly installments of Rs.1890/- each. As per the agreement he was to pay Rs.56700/- in 30 EMI’s, out of which he paid one EMI of Rs.1890/- on 11.12.2013 as advance EMI and rest of 29 EMI’s had to be paid by him through ECS commencing from 07.01.2014 to 07.05.2016.  The contract period had already expired on 07.05.2016 but complainant has not bothered to pay the loan amount; the complaint is nothing but the gross abuse of the process of law because complainant has created a false and concocted story just to escape from the lawful liability of paying the loan amount, till date there is an outstanding an amount of Rs.15,554/-. On merits, it is stated that the total amount payable as per the terms & conditions of the loan agreement is follows:-

EMIs in Nos.	EMIs Amt	Nos. Cheque bounced	Cheque Bouncing Charges	Addl. Interest charges on account of non payment of defaulted installment as on date	Agreement value	Total amount payable as per loan agreement including AIC and cheque bouncing charges
30	1890	16	7258	3265	56700	67223

  Thus complainant was liable to pay amount as per loan agreement i.e. Rs.67223/-.  However, the complainant had paid only 51680/-.  The details of the payment made by complainant is as under:-

Sr. No.	Receipt dated	Mode of Payment	Amount paid
1		One Advance EMI	1890
2	07.01.2014	Through Bank (EMIs ECS)	1890
3	07.02.2014	Through Bank (EMIs ECS)	1890
4	07.03.2014	Through Bank (EMIs ECS)	1890
5	07.04.2014	Through Bank (EMIs ECS)	1890
6	07.06.2014	Through Bank (EMIs ECS)	1890
7	31.08.2015	Cash Receipt	500
8	01.02.2016	Cash Receipt	500
9	01.11.2015	Cash Receipt	1000
10	30.10.2015	Cash Receipt	1500
11	30.11.2015	Cash Receipt	1500
12	01.03.2016	Cash Receipt	1500
13	29.10.2014	Cash Receipt	1890
14	30.05.2015	Cash Receipt	1890
15	10.11.2014	Cash Receipt	1900
16	18.08.2015	Cash Receipt	1900
17	21.07.2014	Cash Receipt	2000
18	31.07.2015	Cash Receipt	2000
19	08.10.2015	Cash Receipt	2000
20	31.12.2015	Cash Receipt	2000
21	01.02.2015	Cash Receipt	2000
22	30.06.2014	Cash Receipt	2340
23	31.01.2015	Cash Receipt	2340
24	30.08.2014	Cash Receipt	2500
25	30.09.2014	Cash Receipt	2520
26	01.01.2015	Cash Receipt	2780
27	31.03.2015	Cash Receipt	3780
		Total Amount Paid	51680

Thus, from the above stated details it is clear that the outstanding loan amount of Rs.15,554/- is still standing due against the complainant, as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement.  As per Clause No.2.9 (f) & First Schedule of the Loan Agreement, bank is entitled for additional interest charges.  As per Clause No.2.10(g) of the loan agreement, the borrower/complainant is liable to pay the cheque bouncing charges as stated in the First Schedule of the loan agreement or as per the applicable law under Negotiable Instrument Act.  It is further stated that time is the essence of the contract and EMIs were to be paid regularly without default.  In the present case, the borrower/complainant did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and committed breach of the loan agreement.  The detail of the cheque bounced charge is as under:

 

Sr No.	EMIs Dated	ECS Nos	EMI Amt.	Status of Cheque	Chq Bouncing Charges
1	07.05.2014	ECS-07/05/2014 80740703	1890	Bounced	449.44
2	07.07.2014	ECS 07.07.2014 80740705	1890	Bounced	449.44
3	07.08.2014	ECS 07.08.2014 80740706	1890	Bounced	449.44
4	07.09.2014	ECS 07.09.2014 80740707	1890	Bounced	449.44
5	07.11.2014	ECS 07.11.2014 80740709	1890	Bounced	449.44
6	07.12.2014	ECS 07.12.2014 80740710	1890	Bounced	449.44
7	07.01.2015	ECS 07.01.2015 80740711	1890	Bounced	449.44
8	07.06.2015	ECS_CHCC 21.06.2015 80740716	1890	Bounced	0
9	07.07.2015	ECS  CHCC 07.07.2015 80740717	1890	Bounced	456
10	07.08.2015	ECS CHCC 07.08.2015 80740718	1890	Bounced	456
11	07.09.2015	ECS CHCC 07.09.2015 80740719	1890	Bounced	456
12	07.10.2015	ECS CHCC 07.10.2015 80740720	1890	Bounced	456
13	07.11.2015	ECS CHCC 07.11.2015 80740721	1890	Bounced	456
14	07.12.2015	ECS CHCC 07.12.2015 80740722	1890	Bounced	458
15	07.01.2016	ECS MCCC 07.01.2016 80740723	1890	Bounced	458
16	07.02.2016	ECS MCCC 07.02.2016 80740724	1890	Bounced	458
17	07.03.2016	ECS MCCC 07.03.2016 80740725	1890	Bounced	458
				Total	7258.08

 

3.       It is further stated that inspite of service of legal notice and filing of complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the complainant, he did not pay the outstanding loan amount.  Rest of the averment made in the complaint are empathically denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.  

4.       On being called to do so, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents i.e. copy of statement of account Ex.C-1, copy of case receipts Ex.c-2, copy of passbook Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence. Learned counsel for OPs has tendered into evidence Hanif Mohd. Bhatti, Branch Manager/Product Executive of OPs as Ex.OPA, alongwith copy of loan agreement Ex.OP-1, copy of settlement proposal Ex.OP-2, copy of statement account Ex.OP-3, copy of additional finance charges Ex.OP-4 and closed the evidence.

5.       We have heard the complainant, learned counsel for OPs and have also gone through the record carefully. 

6.       Complainant submitted that he took loan amount of Rs.42700/- from OP No.2, which was to be repaid by him alongwith interest of Rs.14000/- in 30 EMI’s of Rs.1890/- each and as per agreement he had to pay Rs.56700/- in total.  The complainant had paid Rs.68070/- in total and he had paid Rs.11370/- in excess.  Even then OPs are demanding Rs.8497/- as outstanding amount towards loan.  Therefore, said act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and prayed that complaint be allowed and OPs be directed to refund the excess amount paid by him. The OPs be also directed to pay compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation. Learned counsel for OPs vehemently argued that as per agreement complainant was to pay Rs.56700/- in 30 EMI’s of month installments of Rs.1890/- upto 07.05.2016.  However, complainant had paid Rs.51680/- till 01.03.2016 and not Rs.68070/- as alleged by complainant and Rs.15554/- is still outstanding towards him.  Since, the complainant did not pay the due installments in time therefore bank has charged Rs.3265/- on account of non-payment of defaulted installments on due dates and has levied Rs.7258/- as cheque bouncing charges as per bank norms. As such complainant was to pay Rs.67223/- minus Rs.51680/- = 15554/- as on 01.03.2016.  Therefore, the complaint filed by complainant is devoid of merits and same may be dismissed with costs.

7.       From the perusal of statement of account dated 30.05.2016 Ex.OP3 it evident that complainant is yet to pay Rs.12278/- as on 07.03.2016.   The complainant did not raise any objection to any of the transaction(s) shown in the statement of account, which implies that statement of account was accepted by the complainant and is correct.  In this view of the matter we do not find any merit in the complaint, consequently, the same is dismissed with no orders as to costs.

8.       The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs, as per rules and file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Dated:  27.07.2016

 

                                                          (NEENA SANDHU)

                                                          President

         

                                                          (KANWALJEET SINGH)

                                                          Member