| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No. 480 of 2015 Date of Institution: 04.08.2015 Date of Decision: 05.01.2016 Sh.Kawaljit Singh (age 38 years) son of Shingara Singh, resident of H.No.781, Guru Amar Dass Colony, Naraingarh, Chheharatta, Amritsar, Punjab. Complainant Versus - IDBI Bank Ltd., through its Branch Manager having its Branch Office at Court Road, Near Raj Continental Hotel, Amritsar, Punjab.
- HDFC Bank Ltd, through its Branch Manager/ Authorized Person at 39, The Mall, Novelty Chowk, Amritsar.
Opposite Parties Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date. Present: For the Complainant: None for the complainant. For Opposite Party No.1: Sh.A.S.Cheema, Advocate For Opposite Party No.2: Sh.Anil Kumar, Advocate Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Kawaljit Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he is having saving bank account No.0072104000235587 with Opposite Party No.1. Complainant alleges that he obtained two wheeler loan from Opposite Party No.2, EMI of which was Rs.1580/- to be deducted from saving bank account of complainant maintained with Opposite Party No.1, on 5th day of every month. In July, 2014 Opposite Party No.1 dishonoured EMI payment of Rs.1580/- towards Opposite Party No.2 with the reasons ‘insufficient funds’, but the complainant had sufficient funds in saving bank account maintained with Opposite Party No.1 at that time. So, due to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1, Opposite Party No.2 had charged Rs.463/- (EMI dishonoured charges) in two wheeler loan account of the complainant. Complainant raised this matter with Opposite Party No.1 through e-mail on 2.8.2014 and Opposite Party No.1 assured the complainant in reply of e-mail, dated 6.8.2014 that ‘charges will reverse to your account shortly”. Complainant further alleges that two wheeler loan has been paid to Opposite Party No.2 on 5.6.2015 and last EMI as deducted on 5.6.2015. After that the complainant requested Opposite Party No.2 for issuing the ‘No Due Certificate’ towards two wheeler loan account of the complainant, but Opposite Party No.2 informed the complainant through e-mail dated 23.6.2015 that Rs.463/- towards EMI dishonoured charges are still overdue in this account. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to Opposite Party No.1 to pay Rs.463/- to Opposite Party No.2 and to direct Opposite Party No.2 to issue ‘No Due Certificate’ without any further delay. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, Opposite Party No.1-Bank appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the present complaint pertains to a petty trivial money matter involving a refund of charges of Rs.463/- only and that too presently stand refunded on 13.8.2015 with the refund process having initiated much before the filing of the complaint at the active instance of Opposite Party No.1-Bank. Had the complainant exercised even a moderately little ‘patience’ in filing of his complaint its very cause of action would have itself subsided depriving it of the light of the delay. Hence the present complaint be dismissed in its pre adjudicatory in fructuous status itself sine any furtherance shall be a shear expenses of the valuable judicial time of this Forum and public money. The complainant drawn cheque for Rs.1580/- was returned on 5.7.2014 by CCU Chandigarh of Opposite Party No.1-Bank due to some system problem reading as “Mandate not available; did not run completely and hence the ECS amount got debited from such accounts” Further, it is incorrect that there was sufficient balance in the complainant’s account since as per the records there are left 92 paise only in the account once the cheque in question was debited as is evident from the related account statement. The cheque in question was duly honoured at the complainant’s request upon its representation on 14.7.2014 alongwith the reversal effected on 10.7.2014 of the ‘cheque returned charges’ of 5.7.2014. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint against Opposite Party No.2-Bank and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Opposite Party. Opposite Party No.2- Bank is legally entitled to claim cheque bouncing charges as well as late payment charges on account of default in depositing loan EMI in time as agreed by the complainant at the time of entering into loan cum hypothecation agreement. It is denied that entire loan has been paid by the complainant, but there is still outstanding of Rs.463/- stands due towards the complainant and the complainant is duty bound to deposit the same, but the bank has waived the Cheque bouncing charges. So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2-Bank. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Azad Singh, Branch Manager Ex.OP1/1, copy of statement of account Ex.OP1/2, copy of e-mails Ex.OP1/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party. Similarly, Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Bhupinder Kumar, Assistant Manager (Legal) Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant has saving bank account No.0072104000235587 with Opposite Party No.1. Complainant obtained two wheeler loan from Opposite Party No.2, EMI of Rs.1580/- which was being deducted from saving bank account of complainant being maintained with Opposite Party No.1, on 5th day of every month through ECS. Complainant submitted that in July, 2014 Opposite Party No.1 dishonoured EMI payment of Rs.1580/- towards Opposite Party No.2 with the reasons ‘insufficient funds’, whereas the complainant had sufficient balance in saving bank account maintained with Opposite Party No.1 at that time. Resultantly, Opposite Party No.2 charged Rs.463/- (EMI dishonoured charges) in the aforesaid two wheeler loan account of the complainant. Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 through e-mail on 2.8.2014 and Opposite Party No.1 assured the complainant in reply of e-mail, dated 6.8.2014 that charges will reverse to the account of complainant shortly. Entire loan amount were paid to Opposite Party No.2-Bank on 5.6.2015 and last EMI as deducted on 5.6.2015. Thereafter, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2-Bank for issuing the ‘No Due Certificate’ regarding his two wheeler loan account, but Opposite Party No.2 informed the complainant through e-mail dated 23.6.2015 that a sum of Rs.463/- towards EMI dishonoured charges are still overdue in that two wheeler loan account of the complainant. The complainant therefore, submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
- Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 is that the present complaint pertains to a petty trivial money matter involving a refund of charges of Rs.463/- only and that too has been refunded by Opposite Party No.2 to the complainant on 13.8.2015 and this refund process was initiated much before the filing of the complaint at the instance of Opposite Party No.1, but the complainant did not exercise even a moderately little ‘patience’. Opposite Party No.1 further submitted that the complainant drawn cheque of Rs.1580/- (through ECS) was returned on 5.7.2014 by CCU Chandigarh of Opposite Party No.1 Bank due to some system problem reading as “Mandate not available; did not run completely and hence the ECS amount got debited from such accounts”. Opposite Party No.1 submitted that there was insufficient balance in the aforesaid saving account of the complainant because as per record there were left 92 paise only in the account after the payment of ECS of Rs.1580/- as is evident from the statement of account of complainant Ex.C2. However, said cheque in question was duly honoured at the complainant’s request upon his representation on 14.7.2014 alongwith the reversal effected on 10.7.2014 of the ‘cheque returned charges’ of 5.7.2014. Charges of Rs.463/- have already been reversed by Opposite Party No.2 Bank to the complainant on 13.8.2015 as is evident from the statement of account of the complainant Ex.OP1/2. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 qua the complainant.
- Whereas the case of Opposite Party No.2 is that as the EMI charges of July, 2014 through ECS regarding loan account of the complainant with Opposite Party No.2-Bank was dishonoured by Opposite Party No.1-Bank on the ground of ‘insufficient funds’, Opposite Party No.2 was legally entitled to claim cheque bouncing charges as well as late payment charges on account of default in depositing loan EMI in time as agreed by the complainant at the time of entering into loan cum hypothecation agreement. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 for issuing No Due Certificate, but there was still outstanding of Rs.463/- as cheque bouncing charges as well as late payment charges and the complainant was duty bound to deposit the said amount of Rs.463/- with Opposite Party No.2-Bank. However, later on in consultation with Opposite Party No.1-Bank, Opposite Party No.2 is ready to issue No Due Certificate to the complainant as CBC (Cheque Bouncing Charges) and late payment charges had been already waived, so the present complaint becomes in fructuous and is liable to be dismissed.
- From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant has saving bank account No.0072104000235587 with Opposite Party No.1-Bank. Complainant got two wheeler loan from Opposite Party No.2 and said loan was payable in EMI of Rs.1580/- which was being deducted from saving bank account of complainant being maintained with Opposite Party No.1, on 5th day of every month through ECS. In July, 2014 the EMI of Rs.1580/- payable by Opposite Party No.1-Bank to Opposite Party No.2-Bank through ECS was dishonoured by Opposite Party No.1-Bank with reason ‘insufficient funds’ because after payment of this ECS amount to Opposite Party No.2-Bank, the balance remains in the saving account of the complainant with Opposite Party No.1-Bank remained 92 paisa. Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 through e-mail dated 2.8.2014 Ex.C3 that there were sufficient funds in the account of the complainant and Opposite Party No.1 has wrongly dishonoured the EMI of Rs.1580/- through ECS. The Opposite Parties admitted the wrong done by the officials of Opposite Party No.1 for illegally dishonoring the EMI of July, 2014 of the complainant towards two wheeler loan account of the complainant with Opposite Party No.2, because there was no condition that any specified amount should have been left after deduction of the EMI in the aforesaid saving account of the complainant with Opposite Party No.1. Plea of Opposite Party No.1-Bank that all this happened due to some system problem, is not tenable because the complainant had suffered a lot, even he became defaulter in the eyes of Opposite Party No.2-Bank for non payment of installment of two wheeler loan account with Opposite Party No.2-Bank and the Opposite Party No.2-Bank charged dRs.463/- from the complainant as cheque bouncing charges and late payment charges and all this happened due to fault on the part of Opposite Party No.1-Bank. No doubt, Opposite Party No.1-Bank in consultation with Opposite Party No.2-Bank now reversed this amount of Rs.463/- to the saving account of the complainant as is evident from the statement of Opposite Party No.2-Bank Ex.Op1/2, but all this happened after the filing of the present complaint by the complainant in this Forum and the Opposite Party No.2-Bank became ready to issue ‘No Due Certificate’ to the complainant in his two wheeler loan account, only after filing of the present complaint. So, all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No.1-Bank qua the complainant. Opposite Party No.1-Bank can not wriggle out from this deficiency only by saying that the present complaint pertains to a petty trivial money matter involving a refund of charges of Rs.463/- only as stated by Opposite Party No.1-Bank in their written version, because this act of Opposite Party No.1-Bank has damaged the reputation of the complainant/ consumer in the eyes of Opposite Party No.2-Bank as the complainant was declared defaulter by Opposite Party No.2-Bank in the aforesaid loan account of the complainant. Resultantly, Opposite Party No.1-Bank is liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
- Consequently, this complaint is disposed of with the directions to Opposite Party No.2-Bank to immediately issue ‘No Due Certificate’ in the aforesaid two wheeler loan account to the complainant and the Opposite Party No.1-Bank is directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/-. Opposite Party No.1-Bank is also directed to pay the costs of litigation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.1000/-. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 05.01.2016. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
