DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2024.
Filed on: 13/06/2022
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No. 294/2022
COMPLAINANT
Ajas MB, S/o Bashir, Mukkada House, Thandekkad, Ponjassery P.O., Perumbavoor, Ernakulam-683547.
(Rep. by Adv. Muhammed Ajeesh P.B., 1st Floor, Cee Dee Tower, St. Benedict Road, Kacheripady, Ernakulam 18)
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTY
IDFC First Bank, 54/3106 C, 1ST Floor, Grace Corner, Kaloor Kadavanthra, Kadavanthra, Cochin-682020 represented by its Manager.
FINAL ORDER
D.B. Binu, President:
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complainant took a vehicle loan of Rs. 74,500/- from the respondent bank to purchase a wheeler with registration No. KL-40-S-9846, agreeing to repay the loan in 36 monthly instalments of Rs. 2814/-, to be automatically deducted from the complainant's account on the 2nd day of each month starting from May 2021.
The respondent bank consistently failed to withdraw the EMI on the agreed date, causing irregular deductions. Despite having sufficient funds, the bank withdrew the first instalment a day late and continued this pattern, leading to penalties and charges. The respondent bank imposed various charges and penalties despite the complainant maintaining a sufficient account balance. The complainant was charged Rs. 472/- as a service charge and various other amounts under different heads without prior notice or valid reason. The respondent bank's inconsistency in withdrawing EMIs led to additional fines and penalties being imposed on the complainant.
The respondent bank's actions included withdrawing charges multiple times within a month under different pretexts, totaling Rs. 12,325/-. Despite repeated requests to correct these issues and reimburse the excess charges, the respondent bank did not take any corrective actions. The complainant claims the bank exploited his ignorance and illegally withdrew money, which hindered his business operations and caused financial and mental distress.
The complainant requests the Hon'ble Commission to direct the respondent bank to refund Rs. 12,325/- with 18% interest from the date of complaint until realization, compensate Rs. 1,00,000/- for the deficiency of service, unfair trade practice, and the mental agony and business loss suffered, and pay Rs. 20,000/- as the cost of the proceedings. The complainant emphasizes that the respondent bank violated the Reserve Bank of India's regulations and engaged in unfair trade practices, necessitating legal action for redressal.
2) Notice:
The notice to the opposite party was sent by the commission. However, despite accepting the notice, the opposite party did not file a version, and as a result, they are set ex parte.
3.Evidence:
The complainant did not file a proof affidavit but submitted the two documents with the complaint to the commission.
1: Copy of the Vehicle Inspection Notice issued by the Opposite party dated 05.04.2022
2: Copy of the Account statement of the complainant dated 25.04.2022.
4. Points for Analysis:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iii) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5. The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
The complainant did not appear before the Commission, nor was any evidence presented on their behalf. The case had been scheduled for the complainant's evidence and settlement since November 25, 2022. Despite the Commission's reminder through a phone call on December 11, 2023, urging the complainant to attend and present evidence, there was a consistent failure to appear at subsequent hearings. No evidence has been submitted to date. Given the complainant's sporadic attendance and failure to provide the requisite evidence, the Commission is left with no choice but to proceed with the judgment based on the evidence at hand. The complainant's repeated absence and failure to submit a proof affidavit or to make further appearances indicate a disinterest in pursuing the case.
In a series of decisions, it has been established that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to demonstrate negligence or deficiency in service by presenting evidence before the Commission. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support the complainant's case. As stated in the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd (2021 AIR SC 4849), "the onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in complaints under the Consumer Protection Act." It is the complainant who approached the Commission, and without any proof of deficiency, the opposite parties cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.
In conclusion, the Commission finds that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims of deficiency in service or negligence by the opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed, and no relief is granted to the complainant.
ORDER
Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission has determined that the contentions raised by the complainant lack merit. As a result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this the 27th day of June 2024.
Sd/-
D.B. Binu, President
Sd/-
Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 294/2022
Order Date: 27/06/2024
