Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/442

Raj Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

IDFC First Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Sethi Adv.

02 Jun 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 442 dated 13.09.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 02.06.2022.

 

 Raj Pal son of Sh. Tarsem Lal, R/o. H. No.36, St. No.1, G.R.D. Nagar, Backside Central Jail, Jamalpur, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                             ..…Complainant 

•  

1. IDFC First Bank Limited (Formally IDFC Bank Limited), SCO-24, 3^rd Floor, Trade Tower, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Authorized signatory/General Manager/Managing Director.
2. IDFC First Bank Limited (Formally IDFC Bank Limited) Naman Chamber, C 32, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai through its Authorized Signatory/General Manager/Managing Director.
3. IDFC First Bank Limited (Formally IDFC Bank Limited) Registered office: KRM Towers, 7^th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai through its Authorized Signatory/General Manager/Managing Director.
4. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Authorized Signatory/General Manager/Managing Director.                                                                                           …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Sandeep Sethi, Advocate.

For OP1 to OP3             :         Sh. Anand Sabehrwal, Advocate.

For OP4                         :         None (Defence of OP4 already struck of vide                                              order dated 04.02.2021)

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he got financed Activa bike from the OP1 to OP3 for a sum of Rs.41,000/- which was repayable in equal 24 installments of Rs.2170/-  each. The installments were to be paid as per ECS installments issued by the complainant to the bank. The complainant has been making regular payment of the installments through his bank and also made cash payments against the proper cash receipts and never committed default in respect of any installments. However, the OPs deducted unnecessarily charges via ECS from the savings bank account No.06862151012332 without instructions of the complainant. In this regard, the complainant approached the office of the OPs for knowing the deduction of more than Rs.11,000/- from the savings account by OP1 to OP3 but no satisfactory reply was given. Even after  the complainant had paid all the installments in time, the OPs had not issued the NOC to the complainant nor have settled the loan account on one time settlement basis in respect of the remaining installments. A legal notice dated 27.07.2019 served upon the OPs also failed to evoke positive response from the OPs. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Hence the complaint. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the overcharged amount of Rs.13,000/- along with compensation ofRs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.31,000/- and in addition to this, the OPs be further directed to issue no due certificate to the complainant.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP1 to OP3, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable. According to OP1 to OP3, on the request of the complainant, a loan of Rs.41,000/- was sanctioned vide loan agreement No.7685532 which was repayable in 24 equated monthly installments of Rs.2170/- each @24.10 per annum. For the payment of the installments, ECS mandate was given by the complainant to his bankers. However, the complainant was not regular in repayment of his loan installments and committed default in repaying the loan. No cash payment was made by the complainant, as alleged in the complaint. In fact, the complainant was bound to pay the loan amount through ECS but a number of ECS got dis-honoured and as on 08.12.2020 a sum of Rs.27,868/- was outstanding along with penal and bouncing charges against the complainant. As the complainant has not repaid the installments, the question of issuing NOC does not arise. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                No written statement was filed on behalf of OP4 and the defence of OP4 was struck on 04.02.2021.

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex- C1 to Ex- C7 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OP1 to OP3 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Manpreet Singh, Legal Manager/Authorized representative of OP1 to OP3 along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R9 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the OPs and have also gone through records.

7.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has contended that only five installments were outstanding against the complainant at the time of filing of the complaint. However, OP1 to OP3 and OP4 in connivance with each other have deducted huge amount from the account of the complainant as reflected in the copy of the savings bank account Ex. C1 which shows that there was a balance of minus Rs.8234.27. According to the counsel for the complainant, this is a clear cut deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

8.                We have thoughtfully considered the above contentions of the counsel for the complainant but have found the same untenable. The complainant has not placed on record any statement of account which might show that he has paid  all the installments as claimed in the complaint. Rather the counsel for the complainant has candidly admitted that at the time of filing of the complaint, five installments were still outstanding. Considering the fact that all the installments were not duly paid by the complainant in time, the question of issuing NOC cannot arise.

9.                As regards other grievance of the complainant, it would be suffice to state that if an ECS mandate fails due to insufficient funds in the account of the account holder, it attracts penal charges as per the banking rules. Therefore, the complainant cannot be heard harping that the charges have been unnecessarily imposed upon him. It is evident from the account statement Ex. R3 placed on record by the OPs that the ECS mandate/auto debit failed many a time due to insufficient funds. In the given circumstances, it has to be held that the complainant has failed to make out a case of deficiency of service.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.06.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Raj Pal Vs IDFC First Bank                                           CC/19442

Present:       Sh. Sandeep Sethi, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Anand Sabherwal, Advocate for OP1 to OP3.

                   None for OP4 (Defence of OP4 already struck of vide order dated               04.02.2021)

 

                   None turned up for OP4 today also. None has been appearing on behalf of OP4 since 09.12.2020.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.06.2022.

Gobind Ram.