DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.140/21.08.2007 Decided on : 14.11.2008 Teja Singh S/o Sh.Sarwan Singh, Near Bus Stand, Joga, District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Limited, SCO No.153-155, Sector 8C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.S.K.Singla, counsel for the complainant. Sh.Randeep Sharma, counsel for the opposite party. Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Instant one is the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act' ) preferred by the complainant seeking a direction from this Forum to the opposite party to pay Rs.3,655/- along with interest; Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs of litigation. Briefly put the case of the complainant is that he had obtained house loan from the opposite party. His account No. is 560262252. He was paying the installments of the loan along with interest. On 10.4.2006, cheque No.860883 of State Bank of India Branch Joga was issued by him for a sum of Rs.3,365/- towards the payment of installments even thereafter he was paying the loan amount through installments. Despite the fact that cheque was sent by him, opposite party was pressing hard for paying Rs.3,365/-. Confirmation was also sought by him from State Bank Contd........2 : 2 : of India Branch Joga regarding the cheque referred to above and the same was sent to the opposite party which did not accept the payment of that amount to it. He had deposited the amount of Rs.3,655/- again along with other expenses. In all he deposited Rs.3,655/- with the opposite party. Despite this, amount of Rs.3,655/- which have been deposited by him had not been adjusted. In this manner deficiency in service is alleged on the part of the opposite party. Notice of this complaint was issued to the opposite party which filed its version taking the preliminary objection that complaint is not maintainable, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as loan was taken from its Patiala branch; documents were either executed at Patiala or Chandigarh and complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint. It admits that cheque No.860883 for Rs.3,365/- of State Bank of India was issued. Amount of this cheque was not received in its account for three months. Accordingly it had reversed the credit provided for that cheque and there is no question of clearance of the liability of the cheque. It admits that a sum of Rs.3,655/- i.e. Rs.3365/- for Equated monthly installments + Rs.234/- as additional interest on late payment + Rs.56/- as simple interest for four days was deposited. This amount was duly adjusted in his account and has been reflected in the statement of account. It does not admit the remaining averments in the complaint. Both the parties have led their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after careful scrutiny of the evidence, Complainant has made out a case of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party for these reasons. The ld. counsel for the OP has placed reliance upon Ext.OP-3, Statement of Account for the period 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007 and under the heading of Transactions during the year, Cheque No.860883 in the sum of Contd........3 : 3 : Rs.3365/- figures twice i.e. against dated 10.4.06 and 31.7.06. According to the complainant he had deposited the amount of Rs.3,655/- again along with other expenses. It is the admitted case of the OP in the written version itself that a sum of Rs.3,655/- i.e. Rs.3365/- for Equated monthly installments + Rs.234/- as additional interest on late payment + Rs.56/- as simple interest for four days was deposited by the complainant. Apart from the above, according to the letter dated 29.5.2007 (Ext.C-1), the State Bank of India, branch Joga has issued draft dated 16.5.2006 for Rs.7559/- to the Branch Manager, HDFC, Chandigarh for the collection of three different cheques which also includes cheque bearing No.860883 dated 10.4.2006 for Rs.3365/- issued by the complainant. It is crystal clear from this letter that the cheque was duly forwarded to the HDFC, Chandigarh by the SBOI, Branch Joga within a months' time. The next cheque issued on 10.4.2007 by the complainant was duly sent by the SBOI, Branch Joga to the HDFC, Chandigarh vide their registered letter No.2572 dated 23.5.2007. As per this letter it is clear that Cheque submitted on 10.4.2006 by the complainant has been sent to HDFC on 16.5.2006 and the cheque submitted on 10.4.2007 has been sent on 23.5.2007. A bare perusal of the above letter reveals that the cheques remain in the bank for a period of about one and a half month and only thereafter they are being sent to the HDFC for clearance. The complainant is not at all in fault for this delay and if there is any delay (three months, as alleged by the OP in its written version), the same can be attributed either on the part of the SBOI, Branch Joga or the HDFC, Chandigarh (OP) itself. From the various statements of accounts produced on record by the OP, copies of which are Ext.OP-2 to OP-8, there seems no fault on the part of the complainant in depositing the EMI with the OP in time. If there is any lapse or in case of any in transit of the cheque, for this the complainant cannot be held liable. The complainant had admittedly deposited Rs.3655/- along with other expenses with the opposite party despite the issuance of a cheque in the sum of Contd........4 : 4 : Rs.3365/- bearing No.860883 in respect of his house loan. The OP has not disclosed any sound ground for not returning the amount received twice by it, which was duly adjusted in his account later on and was then reflected in the statement of account of the complainant, as admitted in the written version. The OP was legally bound to act at once and refund this amount when this fact came to its knowledge that the amount has been received twice, but it was not done so by it. The complainant was dragged into litigation without any fault on his part which has caused him mental agony and physical harassment. In the light of what has been discussed above, we are of the view that deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in retaining the amount of Rs.3655/- illegally is proved beyond any doubt. In the premises written above, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the OP to refund Rs.3655/- to the complainant. The OP is also burdened with Rs.1000/- as compensation and costs of litigation. Compliance of the order be made within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order which shall be supplied to the parties free of charges under the rules and file be consigned to record. Pronounced: 14.11.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.
