<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 29.12.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 13th FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2845/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Mr.R.Shridhar Rao,S/o Late H.A.Raghunatha RaoAged about 57 years,Proprietor,Mega & Neha Associates,C/o No.167 Fern City,Outer Ring Road,Doddannekundi Village,Bangalore – 560 037.Advocate – Sri.Harikrishna S. HollaV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The I.C.I.C.I Bank,West Wing Mytree Centre,No.4/101, Hosur Road,Bommanahalli,Bangalore – 560 068Rep. by its ManagerAdvocate – Sri.Prashanth Kumar P.D<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.1,00,000/- 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 applied for a vehicle loan from OP repayable in 45 EMI at the rate of Rs.11,130/- commencing from 01.07.2006. He has also made payment of Rs.30,105/- in cash as down payment. Though complainant complied all the requirements, OP did not sanction the vehicle loan and release the same. Complainant being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP sought for cancellation of the said loan and requested to refund the deposit made including 45 EMI cheques issued by him. Though OP confirmed the cancellation of the loan vide letter dated 13.10.2006 but still presented certain cheques and got encashed the EMI. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to refund the said EMI amount to him including the post-dated cheques went in futile. Thereafter complainant was forced to send an intimation to the Bank for stop payment. With all that OP filed a criminal complaint against him under N.I Act at C.C.No.9908/2008. Ultimately the said proceedings were stayed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka then OP withdrew the said complaint. Due to the highhandedness and arbitrary act of the OP, complainant for no fault of his is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances complainant felt deficiency in service. Accordingly he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP there is no privity of contract between OP and the complainant. The vehicle loan was forwarded through the dealer of the said vehicle wherein the loan sanctioned will directly go to the dealer and complainant is liable to pay EMI as undertaken. The present relief now sought by the complainant is of a civil in nature. He would have approached the civil court for appropriate remedy. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party like dealer of vehicle. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. As the complainant issued stop payment to the Bank, OP is forced to file complaint under N.I Act. That Act of the OP can’t be termed as deficiency in service. 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. 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 /> 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 sought for the vehicle loan from OP during the month of June 2006. OP sanctioned the loan, it is required to repaid in 45 EMI at the rate of Rs.11,130/- commencing from 01.07.2006. Complainant has further contended that he has paid Rs.30,105/- in cash as a down payment with regard to the sanction and release of the said loan. According to the complainant though he complied all the requirements, OP failed to sanction the said loan and the release the said loan. Under such circumstances he sought for cancellation of the said loan and refund of the cheques issued towards payment of EMI.<br /> <br /> 7. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake just to shirk their responsibility and obligation. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity.<br /> 8. According to the complainant though OP addressed the letter dated 13.10.2006 intimating the cancellation of the loan subsequently there too they encashed the EMI cheque. It is the OP who intimated him to send intimation to his Banker to stop payment. Complainant trusted the words of the OP and intimated the Bank to stop payment. OP took undue advantage of the same and initiated a criminal complaint against him U/s.138 of N.I Act at C.C.No.9908/2008. Thereafter OP withdrew the said complaint on 04.10.2008. So all these acts and deeds of the OP appears to be arbitrary tainted with negligence and carelessness. It is a classic example of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 9. On the plain reading of para.10 of the version it is contended “It is submitted that pursuant to same the complainant failed to collect the cheque from the opposite party. The complaint filed by the opposite party was withdrawn after realization the gaffe; the same was also presented unintentionally”. So this defence which amounts to an admission of deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OP is sufficient to trust and believe the contention of the complainant. Of course OP has taken the strange defence that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party like dealer and the claim of the complainant is almost like a suit filed for recovery of the amount in due. We don’t find any force in the defence set out by the OP.<br /> <br /> 10. In view of the discussions made by us there is a proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Even after the cancellation of the loan OP intended to encash the post dated EMI cheques, which is unfair and unjust. What is the basis for the complainant to claim a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- together with litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- is not known. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. As the complainant has not sought for the refund of the down payment of cash of Rs.30,105/- we don’t think there is a need to pass any separate order for the same. Rights of the complainant to recover the same are kept open. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 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 13th day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />