Delhi

East Delhi

CC/351/2018

GYANI SAGAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDIA BULLS HOUSING FIN. CO. - Opp.Party(s)

04 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.351/2018

 

	GYANI SAGAR S/O LATE SH. BHANU PRATAP SAGAR R/O H.NO. J-197, OLD SEEMA PURI, DELHI -110095	….Complainant
Versus
	INDIA BULLS HOUSING FINANCE COMPANY, SERVICE TO BE EFFECTED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT F-15, VASUNDHARA ENCLAVE, NEW SHAHEED CAPTAIN, SOMEER BHAN MARG, DELHI – 110096	……OP1
	STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS MANAGER BRANCH SEEMA PURI, C-BLOCK, NEW SEEMA PURI, DELHI - 110095	……OP2

 

Date of Institution	:	02.11.2018
Judgment Reserved on	:	20.04.2023
Judgment Passed on	:	04.05.2023

 

QUORUM:

 

Sh. S.S. Malhotra	(President)
Ms. Rashmi Bansal	(Member)
Sh. Ravi Kumar	(Member)

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

1. By this order the Commission shall dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant w.r.t. deficiency in service on the part of OP2 in wrongfully debiting the account of the complainant on account of wrongfully dishonoring of the ECS instructions despite there was sufficient amount in his account and then in levying charges upon the complainant.    
2. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he availed loan from OP1 for Rs.52,000/- which he had to pay to the OP1 in monthly installment of Rs.1,696/- and for that he gave necessary instruction to OP2 that the same may be debited from his account regularly by way of ECS.  But in the month of August, the OP1 presented the ECS to OP2, the same was rejected five times by the OP2 despite there was sufficient amount in his account, which act of the OP2 in collusion with the OP1 is illegal and caused great mental agony to the complainant and it is further submitted that in totality Rs.295/- were deducted each time from the account of the complainant for 15 times despite of the fact there was sufficient amount.  It is submitted that when oral request of complainant was not heard, the complainant after serving a legal notice, which was not complied with and complainant has filed the present complaint thereby seeking the prayer that OP2 be directed to pay Rs.295 X 15 (Rs.4,425/-) along with interest @ 24% p.a., a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and legal expenses of Rs.15,000/-. 
3. Notice was issued to the OPs but OP1 did not appear despite service and was proceeded Ex-parte and OP2 has filed its reply.
4. The OP2 in its reply has taken the preliminary objection that complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious, complainant has concealed the material facts, no ECS was dishonored on account of sufficient funds as alleged and rather it is submitted that the complainant’s account is registered with OP2 with ECS instructions for Rs.1696/- per month and it is mandatory that complainant would keep minimum balance of Rs.1000/- in his saving bank account and dishonor of ECS of any was only on account of the reason that there was no ‘sufficient balance’ in his account.  It is further denied that there was sufficient balance in the account of complainant in between 04.07.2018 to 25.09.2018 and therefore ECS mandate got rejected and accordingly the dishonor charges were levied which are generated in the computer by itself and therefore there is no fault on the part of OP2 and therefore it is prayed that complaint of the complainant be dismissed. 
5. As far as merits are concerned the existence of account of the complainant and ECS mandate is not denied but the contents of preliminary objections are reiterated.  It is further stated that the compensation as stated is highly exaggerated and therefore it is prayed that complaint of the complainant be dismissed. 
6. The Complainant filed Rejoinder to the Written Statement thereby denying the contents of the Written Statement. 
7. Complainant has filed his evidence and OP has filed the evidence of Sh. Manish Kumar, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Seema Puri Branch.  
8. The Commission has heard the arguments and also gone through the Written Arguments of both the parties and documents on record. 
9. The basic contention which has to be adjudicated upon is as to whether there was sufficient balance in the account of the complainant as and when ECS was to be honoured, secondly can the OP levy charges for more than once in a day if there is no sufficient funds in the account of the complainant. 
10. The Complainant has filed Annexure –B and the scanned version of the same is reproduced herein below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11. In the Written Arguments he has also displayed similar table and from the same it is clear that right from the date 04.07.2018 upto the date 25.09.2018 there was only one occasion i.e. on 13.07.2018 when the amount was less than the amount which was to be paid by the OP2 as per ECS mandate  and not only this, the account of the complainant was debited twice on 14.08.2018, twice on 31.08.2018 and five times on 02.09.2018.  The Commission had enquired from the Ld Counsel for OP2, who was accompanied with one Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Branch Manager, SBI, Trilok Puri and on yet another date he was accompanying with Sh. Vikas Kumar, Branch Manager, SBI, Seema Puri but despite having appeared twice, no explanation was given by OP2 as to why ECS charges were taken twice  on one day, once it has already been dishonoured and charges has been levied and also failed to express as to why on 02.09.2018 the ECS charges were levied for five times in a day.  The OP has also failed to show that there was no balance in the account of the complainant on these dates worth honoring the ECS request. 
12. Therefore, it stands established that OP2 had not only deducted the ECS amount despite there was sufficient balance in the account of complainant but also has leveled charges of dishonouring the cheque again and again on the same date which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 
13. Therefore, OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.4,130/-(Rs.4425 – Rs.295) {as there is not insufficient balance on one date}, along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint and apart from that the OP would also pay Rs.2500/- as lumpsum compensation towards mental agony. 

This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, and if the same would not be complied within 30 days then OP would pay the interest on the whole amount @ 9% p.a till realization. 

Copy of the order be supplied/sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on 04.05.2023