STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. | : | 14 of 2012 | Date of Institution | : | 11.01.2012 | Date of Decision | : | 23.01.2012 |
Dr. Joseph K. Masih, son of Late Sh. Kirpal Masih, resident of H.No. 49, Shivalik Vihar, Block – G, Nayagaon, Tehsil Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. ……Appellant V e r s u s HDFC Bank, Branch Office, SCO No.74-75, Madhya Marg, Sector 8C, Chandigarh. ....Respondent Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh.Sunil K. Dixit, Advocate for the appellant. PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.11.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant) and directed the Opposite Party (now respondent), as under:- “In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint has merit. Therefore, it is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed to either return the cheque No.0209468 for Rs.1358/- to the complainant or credit the same into the account of the complainant. They are also directed to credit an amount of Rs.1500/- debited by them from the account of the complainant. The above payments of Rs.1358/- and Rs.1500/- i.e. Rs.2858/- be made to the complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 15.6.2010 till its actual realization. OP shall also pay Rs.2500/- as cost of litigation. The above order be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order; failing which they shall be liable to pay the amount of Rs.2858/-along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 15.6.2010 till its actual realization besides paying Rs.2500/- as litigation costs”. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, the complainant availed of car loan, by way of overdraft limit, from the Opposite Party, vide A/c No. 2186526. After completing all the formalities, the Opposite Party, opened current A/c No. 01078490000168. The complainant started operating the account. He deposited Cheque No. 0209468, for Rs.1358/-, with the Opposite Party, on 03.10.2008, though the same was not credited to his account, but was shown to be returned, as reflected, in the statement of account for October, 2008. It was stated that this cheque, was never received by the complainant, despite approaching the Opposite Party, a number of times. Ultimately, the complainant, wrote to the Opposite Party, on 3.11.2008, 21.5.2009 and 21.7.2009, but no action was taken thereupon. It was further stated that the Opposite Party, also debited Rs.500/-, on 1.10.2008, to the account of the complainant, without his consent or authority. Again, on 10.11.2008, the Opposite Party, debited Rs.500/-, in excess to the Equal Monthly Installment (EMI), for which the complainant wrote letters dated 21.5.2009 and 21.07.2009, but no action was taken. Thereafter, on 1.12.2009, the Opposite Party debited Rs.500/-, to the account of the complainant, without any plausible justification. When no response was received by the complainant, from the Opposite Party, in relation to the letters, referred to above, he issued a legal notice dated 05.12.2009. Even after the issuance of the legal notice, no response was received by the Opposite Party. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also, indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed. 3. The Opposite Party, in its written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that the complainant, had applied for and obtained finance, from the Opposite Party, under an overdraft account limit facility. The same was for a period of one year. The extension of the said overdraft account limit, was the sole discretion of the bank. It was stated that the facility could be withdrawn by the bank, at any stage or could be reduced. It was further stated that according to the terms and conditions of the agreement, the amount available under the facility would automatically get reduced by 20% every year, subject to extension of the same, by the Opposite Party. It was further stated that the complainant was well aware of the fact, that the rate of interest was dynamic. It was further stated that the complainant, continued to utilize the said facility. It was further stated that vide communication dated 9.11.2009, the complainant was made aware of the fact, that the available amount, under the facility, had been reduced by 20%, in terms of the agreement and the same was duly accepted by him. It was further stated that, in case, the complainant was not interested in the extension of the said facility, or was not satisfied with the same, or had any grouse, against the reduction of the facility, to the extent of 20% every year, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, executed between the parties, then, he could have opted for the closure of the account, but he did not do so. It was further stated that vide communication dated 9.1.2010, the complainant was informed, that his account was in arrears. He was requested to deposit the defaulted amount, to make the account regular, but he did not deposit the amount, which was due against him, as a result whereof, the Opposite Party, issued notice dated 5.2.2010, recalling the full amount of facility, as the account was in default. Inspite of the said notice, the complainant, did not deposit the amount, due against him. Again, vide communication dated 11.2.2010, the complainant was intimated, that the said facility, had been discontinued by the Opposite Party. It was further stated that against the applicable rate of interest at 22.5% P.A., the complainant was offered a conversion, into an EMI based product, wherein the applicable rate of interest was 11.5% P.A., with monthly reducing. It was further stated that the complainant, did not choose the aforesaid option, which was given to him, with regard to the reduced rate of interest. It was further stated that the said offer, was again reiterated to the complainant, vide communication dated 25.3.2010, sent to him, but again he, did not exercise the said option. It was further stated that vide this communication, the complainant was categorically informed, that, in case, he did not exercise the option to convert the same, into an EMI based facility, then the same would be charged, at the rate of interest at 30% per annum. It was further stated that, in that communication, the complainant was clearly intimated, that, in such a case, the facility available, would be reduced by 8% every month. Still the complainant, did not choose to exercise this option, of the reduced rate of interest. It was further stated that, accordingly, the facility amount continued to be reduced every month by 8%. It was further stated that the complainant was also liable to pay overdue, and late payment charges, thereon. It was further stated that the reason for the return of the cheque, was clearly mentioned, as joint signatures were required. It was further stated that the account of the complainant was debited, on account of the default, in making the payment of the amount, due under the overdraft limit facility on the due date. It was denied, that it was done without any reason or authority. It was further stated, that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 6. Feeling aggrieved, against the non-grant of compensation, by the District Forum, the instant appeal, was filed by the complainant (now appellant). 7. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the complainant wrote a number of letters to the Opposite Party, as mentioned, in the complaint, yet no response, was given to the same. He further submitted that, the account of the complainant, was debited from time to time, without his consent or authority. He further submitted that the complainant had to suffer, a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, for which, he was required to be awarded compensation, but the District Forum, fell into a grave error, in refusing to grant the same. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, be modified and the appellant be granted reasonable compensation. 9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The Counsel for the appellant, did not dispute the findings of the District Forum, recorded, on other issues, but the main grouse, which was raised by him, was that, compensation was not granted to the appellant, for mental agony and physical harassment. It may be stated here, that the District Forum, directed the Opposite Party to credit the amount of Rs.2858/- i.e. [Rs. Rs.1358/- plus(+)Rs.1500/- debited by it, to the account of the complainant], in the account to the complainant, alongwith interest @9% p.a., from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 15.6.2010, till its actual realization. Even, the District Forum, directed the Opposite Party, to pay the amount, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, it was directed to pay the amount of Rs.2858/-, alongwith penal interest @12% p.a. Besides this, the District Forum, also granted Rs.2500/-, as litigation costs. In our considered opinion, the District Forum, after taking into consideration, the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, and evidence, on record, was wholly correct, in coming to the conclusion, that since normal interest @9% p.a. and the penal interest @12% p.a., had been granted, there was no necessity of granting compensation separately, as interest would take care of the same. It is a settled principle of law, that the Consumer Foras, are not meant to enrich the consumers, at the cost of the service provider. The Consumer Foras, are required to balance the equities, while granting relief. The communications, which were sent by the complainant, from time to time, were duly responded to, by the Opposite Party. A number of communications, were also sent by the Opposite Party, to the complainant, stating therein, the terms and conditions from time to time, but he did not respond to the same. Under these circumstances, in our considered opinion, it is not a fit case, in which the compensation, in addition to interest, referred to above, should be granted to the complainant. 10. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant. 11. The order passed by the District Forum, being based on correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld. 13. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 14. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced. January 23, 2012 Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
