COMPLAINT FILED: 27.11.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 06th JANUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2574/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.A.D.Edward,S/o Late A.Devaraj,Age 46 years,# 119, Karumariamman Kovil Street,Venkateshpuram,(Opp. IBP Petrol Bunk)Arabic College Post,Bangalore – 560 045.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY 1. M/s.India Bulls Financial Service Ltd.,F-60, II Floor, Malhotra Building,Connaught Place,New Delhi – 100 001.2. M/s. India Bulls Financial Service Ltd.,90/1, Mosque Road,Frazer Town,Bangalore – 5.Advocate – Sri.M.H.Hidyathulla<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.40,000/- and hold the business with transparency and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant availed a loan of Rs.45,000/- from OP in the month of March 2006 repayable in an EMI of Rs.7,667/-. Due to some financial difficulties the EMI for the month of July 2007 was not cleared. Thereafter complainant made the payment of said EMI and expressed his willingness to settle down the loan account at one time settlement scheme. By that time he has already paid an amount of Rs.36,608/-. With all that OP demanded him to pay Rs.43,713/- towards the full and final settlement. The claim of the OP is arbitrary. After the negotiation it was settled for an amount of Rs.15,000/- be paid towards the full and final settlement. Complainant paid the said amount. OP accepted the same and passed the receipt. With all that OP is again claiming a due of Rs.50,179/- which is unjust and improper. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to close the account went in futile. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the repayment of the EMI as noted in the loan application. OP has got a right to collect and recover the out standing dues in terms of the agreement. As admitted by the complainant himself he failed to pay the EMI and become the defaulter. He opened his eyes when OP got issued the legal notice for the recovery of the amount in due. According to OP complainant was in due of Rs.50,179/- out of that complainant paid only Rs.15,000/- and it is a part payment. For the payment of the remaining amount complainant issued the cheque. When OP presented the said cheque it bounced with an endorsement of insufficient funds. OP initiated the proceedings under the N.I Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Delhi. As a counter blast to avoid his liability and obligation complainant has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Entire complaint is devoid of merits. The transaction and the business carried out by the OP is transparent. The other allegations are frivolous. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 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:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.45,000/- from OP in the year 2006 agreeing to repay the same in an monthly EMI of Rs.7,667/- executed the necessary loan agreement and documents. Complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the said loan agreement with regard to repayment of the amount in due. As admitted by the complainant for the month of July 2007 he was unable to pay the EMI as undertaken. But thereafter he paid the same and expressed his willingness to close the account under one time settlement. <br /> <br /> 7. It is further contended by the complainant that by that time he has already paid Rs.36,608/-. After many more discussions OP agreed to settle the claim for Rs.15,000/- and he paid Rs.15,000/- on 31.03.2008 towards the full and final settlement and fore closure of the loan account. OP accepted the same passed the collection receipt as well as the letter of settlement. With all that OP made a claim of Rs.50,179/-. Hence complainant felt that the transactions of the OP are not transparent, claim is illegal and arbitrary and there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 8. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the loan application with regard to repayment of the amount in due. When the complainant become the defaulter in non payment of the EMI as undertaken OP got issued the legal notice for the recovery of the same on 25.09.2007. This fact is not denied by the complainant. According to OP complainant is in due of Rs.50,179/- and they made a claim of the same and again issued the legal notice on 17.12.2007. Copies of the said letters are produced. This fact is also not denied by the complainant. Of course OP admits the receipt of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant and that payment is made only towards the out standing dues a part payment and not the payment towards the full and final settlement under the one time settlement scheme.<br /> <br /> 9. According to OP in order to repay the remaining amount, complainant issued the cheque bearing No.265082 dated 08.11.2008. When OP presented the said cheque it bounced with an endorsement as insufficient funds. Then again OP got issued legal notice to the complainant on 17.12.2008 intimating him that they will prosecute him under N.I Act. When complainant failed to respond they initiated proceedings before Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Delhi. These facts are not disputed by the complainant.<br /> <br /> 10. So on the close scrutiny of the defence set out by the OP it makes abundantly clear that the complainant is the defaulter the cheque which he has given for the clearance of the dues is bounced. Merely because complainant expressed his desire to settle the claim under one time settlement and sought for fore closure is no ground to accept his version that too when an out standing due is Rs.51,179/-. In that context we find there is a force in the defence of the OP that Rs.15,000/- is paid as a part payment towards the out standing due.<br /> <br /> 11. On the close scrutiny of the allegations made in the complaint it did not spell out the case of hiring of services and suffering from deficiency. Rather it discloses a case relating to settlement of account and for the balance in due on the basis of account. In our considered view complainant did not fall within the ambit sec.2 (1) (c) & (e) of the C.P Act. If the complainant is so advised he can file a civil suit for the proper remedy to redress his grievance. Allegations of the complainant that the transactions of the OP is not transparent has no basis. When admittedly complainant became the defaulter in non payment of the EMI he can’t allege the deficiency in service against the OP. Viewed from any angle complaint appears to be devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Under such circumstances complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (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 06th day of January 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />