COMPLAINT FILED: 29.12.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 12th FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 2850/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT A. Narayana Swamy,<br /> S/o. Aswathappa,<br /> Aged about 43 years,<br /> Residing at Business at<br /> Sri Durga Medicals, No. 39,<br /> Opp. Shampura Bus Stop, Near AMC,<br /> Bangalore - 560 045.<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Manager,<br /> H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd.,<br /> Branch : Retail Asset Division,<br /> No. 548/D, Ist Floor,<br /> Maruthi Mansion, CMH Road,<br /> Indira Nagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 038.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (V. Suresh)<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and set right the accounts and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant availed a loan of Rs.1,12,000/- from OP on 10.04.2006 repayable in an EMI of Rs.4,106/- from 10.05.2006. Complainant is prompt in making payment of the said EMI. With all that OP has not maintained the accounts properly. On the other hand OP has contended that the loan is sanctioned in the month of August 2007 and repayment starts from September 2007 at the rate of Rs.1,106/-. The approach of the OP is not fair and honest. Though complainant made repeated requests and demands to OP to set right the said mistake, it went in vain. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Hence he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP it sanctioned Rs.1,12,000/- loan to the complainant on 28.02.2007. Complainant is expected to repay the said amount in 36 EMI at the rate of Rs.4,106/- commencing from 07.03.2007. The other allegations are false and frivolous. To repay the said EMI complainant opted for ECS facility pertaining to his account at Rajajinagar Co-Operative Bank. Out of 23 EMI only 17 EMI were cleared, 6 were dishonoured. At the request of complainant OP came forward to close the said loan under one time settlement and at the time of the foreclosure of the said loan complainant is still in due of Rs.73,796/-. To avoid the payment of the said amount in due complainant has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. The so called payment made by the complainant through Anand Co-operative Bank is nothing to do with the loan obtained by the complainant referred to above. The other allegations are false and frivolous. The complaint is devoid of merits. There is no deficiency in service. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. It is contended by the complainant that he took a loan of Rs.1,12,000/- from OP on 10.04.2006 repayable in an EMI of Rs.4,106/-. In that regard he went on paying the said loan amount through Anand Co-operative Bank, K.G. Halli, Bangalore. On the other hand OP has contended that complainant availed the said loan of Rs.1,12,000/- from their Bank on 28.02.2007 and not on 10.04.2006. OP never sanctioned the loan as contended by the complainant. When that is so, the initial burden lies on the complainant to establish that OP has sanctioned or released the loan in the month of April 2006. On the perusal of the records, evidence and the documents, in our view the complainant has failed to establish the said fact.<br /> <br /> 7. According to the OP complainant agreed to repay the said amount in 36 EMI at the rate of Rs.4,106/- commencing from 07.03.2007. The sanction letter, account extract, ledger extract are produced. It is further contended that complainant opted to pay the said loan through ECS from Rajajinagar Co-Operative Bank. In all 23 ECS payments were received, out of them 17 were honoured, 6 were dishonoured. This fact is not denied by the complainant. This defence of the OP finds support from the statement produced. The contents of the said bank statement is not disputed. Further it is contended by the OP that the complainant is a chronic defaulter. Though it made several requests and demands, complainant failed to make payment of the amount in due.<br /> <br /> 8. It is further contended by the OP that at the request of the complainant they intended to foreclose the whole loan account and as on 13.01.2009 complainant is still in due of Rs.73,796/-. This fact is also not disputed by the complainant. The other contention of the complainant that he made payment through Ananda Co-operative Bank does not hold force because complainant has not opted to pay the said instalments through Ananda Co-operative Bank nor that payment refers to the present loan which he availed from OP. Under such circumstances complainant himself is not very much sure when he availed the loan from the OP and what is the mode of repayment. On the other hand the defence set out by the OP finds supports from the contents of the undisputed documents. <br /> <br /> 9. On the plain reading of the complaint, the allegations made therein, did not spell out a case of hiring of service and suffering from deficiency, rather it disclosed a case relating to settlement of accounts and for the balance due on the basis of the accounts. Under such circumstances the complainant did not fall within the ambit of sec-2(1) (c) (e) of the C.P. Act. If the complainant disputes the statement of accounts produced by the OP, he is advised to file a Civil suit for the proper remedy and redress his grievance. <br /> <br /> 10. In view of the discussions made by us in the above said paras and also having gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, we find the complainant has failed to establish the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 12th day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />