<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 28.08.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 11th NOVEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1893/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Satish Kumar KNo.17/2, 2nd Main, 4th Cross,Near Mangalore Condiments,Saraswathipuram,Nandini Layout,Bangalore – 96.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Manager,HDFC Bank,Retail Asset Division,No.548/D, 1st Floor,Maruthi Mansion,CMH Road, Indiranagar,Bangalore – 38.Advocate – Sri.Mahabaleshwar<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <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.1,18,000/- and for such other relief’s 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 /> <br /> Complainant availed a personal loan of Rs.1,18,000/- from OP repayable in 36 EMI at the rate of Rs.4,447/- on or before 7th of every month. Complainant is prompt in making all the said installments except one or two because of the ill health and insufficient funds. Though complainant agreed to pay the other balance and so called late fee charges, but still OP was insisting him to make down payment of the said amount in cash. As on 19.08.2008 he had a balance of Rs.5,675-90. As he was unwell he was required to go to the hospital for taking treatment, hence he wanted to withdraw the amount. But to his utter shock and surprise OP deducted the amount of Rs.4,924/- without his knowledge. Though he has already paid Rs.4,447/- in cash towards one EMI to the agent of OP and obtained the receipt. The hostile attitude of the OP has caused him both mental agony and financial loss. He was unable to withdraw his own money due to the carelessness and negligence of the OP in debiting the said amount of Rs.4,924/-. His repeated requests and demands made to OP to reverse back the said money to his account went in vain. Thus he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to the OP complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement with regard to the repayment of the said loan. The so called payment alleged to have been made by the complainant through ECS were dishonored for want of insufficient funds. Under such circumstances OP is obliged to collect late payment charges. Of course the agent of the OP collected the EMI in due. In the mean time the ECS cheque was passed and it is got cleared. When OP came to know of the said fact immediately they reversed it and credited it to the account of the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The said mistake has crept in due, thousands of transactions which they balance in a day in OP bank. The other allegations made in the complaint are false and frivolous. Complaint is devoid of merits. 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 <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s 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 Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed a personal loan of Rs.1,18,000/- from OP repayable in 36 EMI at the rate of Rs.4,447/-. The fact that complainant failed to make payment of one EMI that is 14th well in time and the ECS facility availed by the complainant could not be fulfilled due to insufficient funds is admitted by the complainant. The agent of OP collected the said amount of Rs.4,447/- in cash. It is further contended by the complainant that as on 19.08.2008 he should have balance of Rs.5,675-90. As he was un well he intended to go to hospital, hence he wanted to draw that money for treatment. But to his utter shock and surprise that much of amount was not there. OP has wrongly debited Rs.4,924/- from his account towards the EMI in due illegally, though he had already paid the EMI amount. Under the circumstances he felt deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 7. The evidence of the complainant appears to be natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP is that there are several thousands of transactions happens in a day at their Bank and OP did not notice the fact of one ECS EMI cheque having been cleared with respect to the installments that too which was already paid in cash by the complainant to their agent. So this one submission of the OP on the face of it amounts to admission and deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 8. Though OP credited the said amount to the loan account of the complainant later on but still the damage caused to the complainant remains as the complainant was badly in need of the amount for his medical treatment. Because of this wrong debit by the OP he was prevented for drawing the amount for medical treatment. Under such circumstances naturally he must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. The fact that OP has collected the late fee charges earlier and thereafter waved it is also not at dispute.<br /> <br /> <br /> 9. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, in our view justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/- with a litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<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 11th day of November 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />