BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.411 of 2019
Date of Instt. 13.09.2019
Date of Decision: 14.06.2024
Gaurav Soi son of Late Sh. Ramesh Soi resident of House No.94, Gulmohar City, 3 Star Colony, Old Hoshiarpur Road, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. IDFC First Bank (formally known as Capital First) SCO-18, 1ST Floor, Puda Complex, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager/Authorized Representative.
2. IDFC First Bank (formally known as Capital First) KRM Towers, 7th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai-600031 through it MD/CEO/Authorized Representative.
3. State Bank of India, Shakti Nagar, Basti Adda Road, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager/Authorized Person.
4. Raja Mobiles, 501, New Model House, Jalandhar through its proprietor/partner/Authorized Person.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: None for the parties.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant has purchased a mobile Phone Apple I-Phone 6 16 GB (355401077610492) 15.02.2017 from OP No.4 i.e. Raja Mobile Jalandhar vide Invoice No.R-3709 amounting to Rs.31,000/- and had availed a loan facility/service from the Futurem Capital also known as Capital First (which is now merged with the OPs no.1 and 2) amounting to Rs.27,600/- vide application no.210734784 which was sanctioned on 16.02.2017 for the term of 12 months on the monthly installment of Rs.2300/- P.M. which has to be debited from the bank account of the complainant through ECS. The complainant has repaid the entire loan amount to the OPs no.1 and 2 as agreed but the OPs no.1 and 2 with malafide intention had illegally debited an amount of Rs.800/- from the account of the complainant without any reason and prior permission/consent of the complainant. After repayment of the entire loan amount, the complainant approached the office of the OP No.2 for NOC regarding the said loan account. The officials of the OP No.2 had illegally demanded the amount of Rs.350/- from the complainant for issuing the NOC/clearance certificate of the above said loan. The OPs No.1 and 2 in connivance with each other, with malafide intention and to grab the money of the complainant intentionally and deliberately debited the amount of Rs.800/- from the account of the complainant and further demanded Rs.350/- illegally from the complainant which amounts to unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and has caused deep mental agony and harassment to the complainant. The complainant also got served legal notice dated 08.08.2019 upon the OPs No.1 and 2, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.800/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and to issue the NOC/clearance certificate, to the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.3 and OP No.4 failed to appear and ultimately, OP No.3 and OP No.4 were proceeded against exparte, whereas OPs No.1 and 2 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in present form. It is further averred that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and jon-joinder of necessary parties. It is further averred that the present complaint is just an after thought story. There is no cause of action ever accrued in favour of complainant and against the OPs. It is further averred that the complainant has no come with this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts. It is further averred that the present complaint is not come within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is not consumer qua the OPs No.1 and 2. Initially the financial assistance of Rs.27,600/- was taken and the same was sanctioned on 16.02.2017, but later on the complainant failed to discharge his liability in time. As the OPs No.1 and 2 are maintaining the accounts properly. The OPs No.1 and 2 are entitled for their amount. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased Apple iPhone for Rs.31,000/- on 15.02.2017 and it is also admitted that the complainant availed a loan facility from the Futurem Capital also known as Capital First now merged with OPs No.1 & 2 amounting to Rs.27,600/-, but the other allegations as made in the complaint by the complainant are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have gone through the contents of the complaint as well as written statement very minutely.
6. The complainant has proved the bill Ex.C-1 showing that he had purchased Apple iPhone for Rs.31,000/- on 15.02.2017. The complainant has alleged that he availed a loan facility from the Futurem Capital also known as Capital First now merged with OPs No.1 & 2 amounting to Rs.27,600/-. The application has been moved, which was sanctioned by the OPs on 16.02.20217, vide Ex.OP1 i.e. acceptance letter and Ex.OP4 i.e. sanction letter. The account statement has been filed by both the complainant as well as the OP as Ex.C-2/OP-5. The contention of the complainant is that he has paid all the installments and nothing is due towards him but he OP has wrongly debited Rs.800/- from his account without any reason and prior permission. He has challenged the deduction of Rs.800/- from the account of the complainant. It has been alleged by the OP No.1 and 2 that the OPs are maintaining the account properly, but the huge amount was due towards the complainant and the charges were rightly deducted.
7. Perusal of Ex.C-3, the copy of the passbook of the complainant shows that the amount of Rs.2300/- per month as EMI as per Ex.OP-1 was being paid by the complainant from time to time. Ex.C-2, the account statement, shows that the amount of EMI of Rs.2300/- has been duly mentioned and entered in the account statement. As per this statement, Rs.400/- were due towards cheque bouncing charges dated 05.12.2017 and Rs.400/- were due towards cheque bouncing charges on 08.12.2017. As per Ex.OP-1, it has been mentioned that cheque bouncing charges shall be charged as Rs.400/- per cheque bouncing. The sanction letter and acceptance letter has been admitted by the complainant. It has not been denied by the complainant anywhere that the cheque was never bounced. Though as per account statement and passbook, the loan amount has already been paid by the complainant in installments, but the amount of Rs.800/- was due towards the complainant as cheque bouncing charges, which as per the complainant have been debited/deducted from the account of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service by the OPs nor any unfair trade practice or negligence has been proved by the complainant. Due charges have been deducted from the account of the complainant, which was well within the knowledge of the complainant, therefore, the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
14.06.2023 Member President
