Delhi

East Delhi

CC/148/2015

DR, HANS RAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

IDBI BANK - Opp.Party(s)

20 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 148/15

 

Dr. Hansraj Gupta

S/o Late Shri Bhagwan Das

B-63, Hans Apartments

East Arjun Nagar, Delhi – 110 032                                         ….Complainant

Vs.

1. IDBI Bank Ltd.

Through its Regional Manager

C/o Retail Assets Centre

1.  

Lajpat Nagar – III

New Delhi – 110 024                                                                       ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 13.03.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 20.10.2016

Judgment Passed on: 24.11.2016

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act with allegation of unfair trade practice has been filed by the complainant,    Dr. Hansraj Gupta against OP, IDBI Bank.

2.        Brief facts are that the complainant took personal loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- for a term of 5 years in 2005 vide loan agreement no. 110675100000374.  The said loan was repaid via monthly ECS by year 2010.  At the time of commencement of loan, 5 blank signed cheques were given to OP as collateral security.  The said cheques were to be handed over to the complainant once entire loan amount was repaid.  No objection/no dues certificate was not issued by OP despite lapse of   2 years.  The complainant in the year 2012, received summons from        Ld. MM Dwarka Courts in CC U/S 138 of The Negotiable Instrument Act titled as IDBI Vs. Hansraj Gupta.  It is stated that OP had misused cheque no. 361202 to initiate the above said complaint under section 138 of The Negotiable Instrument Act, which was ultimately dismissed in default.  Finally on 25.03.2013, NOC was issued after several visits. 

It is further stated that from the statement of account the complainant came to know that an amount of Rs. 41,000/- was withdrawn, using the cheque issued as collateral security.  A letter dated 13.08.2013 seeking refund of Rs. 41,000/- was sent to OP, which was replied by OP stating that the above said amount was on account of overdue charges.  Legal notice dated 15.12.2014 was sent, which was replied by OP, vide reply dated 06.01.2015, where all allegations were denied.  The complainant has prayed for refund of Rs. 41,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from OP, return of 5 signed blank cheque issued as collateral security, Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony ad Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.        Complaint no. 2185/12 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is annexed as Annexure A, order sheet in CC NO. 2185/12 is Annex. B letter dated 25.03.2013 intimating the closure of personal loan is Annex. C, letter by the complainant dated 13.08.2013, legal notice dated 15.12.2014 is Annex. E, reply to the legal notice dated 06.01.2015 is Annex. F. 

            Notice of the complaint was served to OP, where after reply was filed by the AR of OP.

            It was stated in the reply that the complainant was bound to pay 60 EMIs each of Rs, 11,122/- and penal interest was 36% p.a. in case of default.  The complainant had failed to comply with the schedule and had defaulted in payment of EMI’s.  Thus, the said loan account was declared NPA on 29.07.2010 for which the complainant was duly informed.  It was the complainant who had issued a cheque for              Rs. 26,049/- in lieu of outstanding amount, which got dishonored for which proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act were initiated.  It was further stated that the amount of Rs. 26,049/- was never paid and penal interest was charged on the said amount which accrued to Rs. 41,000/- .  It was only after the payment of Rs. 41,000/- the closure of loan account statement was issued alongwith NOC.  Annex. OP-1 is the General Power of Attorney Annex. OP-2 is the loan application dated 30.01.2005, Annex. OP-3 is the loan agreement between the complainant and OP, Annex. OP-4 is the account statement for a period of 30.01.2005 to 18.03.2013. 

4.        Replication to the written statement of OP was filed by the complainant where it was stated that as per the agreement OP was to deduct EMI on 01.03.2005 through ECS, but OP started deducting from 05.07.2005 and imposed an interest of Rs. 21,038/-.  Dispute was also raised qua the amount of Rs. 10,863/- shown in loan account statement as dues on the complainant.  Rest of the contents of WS were denied. 

5.        Both the parties were directed to file their evidence by way of affidavit.   However, complainant did not file any evidence despite opportunity.  OP filed their evidence and examined Shri Rajinder Kumar, Manager, AR of the OP and reiterated contents of WS.

6.        As the complainant has failed to prove the averments made in the complaint, the complaint cannot be said to be proved.  Hence, the present complaint is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost. 

             Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File b

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

     

      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President