COMPLAINT FILED: 28.06.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 21st AUGUST 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1441/2008 COMPLAINANT S. Sardar Basha, No. 58, Star Building, 2nd K Cross, M.S. Ramaiah Colony, Peenya 2nd Stage, Bangalore 560 058. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY India Bulls Fast Loans, V.G.R. Plaza, Old No. 3080, Double Road, H.A.L 2nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 038. O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the excess of instalment of Rs.2,764/- collected and pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant availed the loan of Rs.50,000/- from the OP for education purpose of his children. In pursuance of the EMI facility that is given to him he was prompt in making payment of the said instalment through ECS. On 25.03.2008 he has cleared the entire loan with interest. With all that OP collected one more EMI of Rs.2,764/-. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP to refund the excess of amount collected, went in futile. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version mainly contending that due to rush of work through oversight they have collected one instalment extra. They are ready to refund the same to the complainant. With all that complainant did not turn up to their Office and make demand. The requests made by the OP to the complainant to take back the money, went in futile. With ulterior motive complainant has filed this false complaint before this Forum to get himself illegally enriched. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP did not file the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed Rs.50,000/- loan from the OP for his children education purpose. It is further contended by the complainant that he was prompt in repayment of the said loan through ECS and on 25.03.2008 he cleared the entire loan including that of the interest. With all that for the subsequent month also OP collected an amount of Rs.2,764/- illegally. When he made demand to the OP to refund the said amount they behaved unruly. For no fault of his, he was made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 7. On the perusal of the defence set out by the OP it flatly admits the fact of they having collected Rs.2,764/- extra from the complainant. It is all because of the heavy business transactions and pressure of work. When they came to know of the said defect they did called upon the complainant to come and take back the extra amount that is collected, but complainant failed to appear before them. Thereafter with a malafide intention to get himself illegally enriched has filed this false complaint. 8. Having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think in the ordinary course of time any prudent man will refuse to accept his money which was collected by the financial institution in excess or illegally that too, when the refund is offered by the said institution. For this simple reason we do not find any force in the defence set out by the OP. 9. The hostile attitude of the OP must have naturally caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of his. If OP is really honest in refund of the said extra instalment collected by them, they would have sent the cheque or D.D. to the given and admitted address of the complainant for the said amount. At least would have sent a letter directing the complainant to come and receive the said amount. But no such steps are taken. Under the circumstances we are satisfied that the complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence he is entitled for the relief. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed. OP is directed to refund Rs.2,764/- together with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from April 2008 till realization and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 21st day of August 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
......................A.M. BENNUR ......................SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA ......................SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
