DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 409 of 11-08-2011

Decided on : 08-11-2011

Hari Singh S/o Sh. Ram Partap R/o Kachawas, Raman, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus

IndusInd Bank Limited, G.T. Road, Bathinda, through its Manager

..... Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Mamber

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Hardev Singh, counsel for the complainant

For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for the opposite party.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). In brief, the case of the complainant is that he got financed his new Bajaj CT-100 motor cycle bearing registration No. PB-03N/2495 with the opposite party for a sum of Rs. 23,000/- vide contract No. PBN00106H dated 15-7-2005. He agreed to pay the said loan amount in 24 equal monthly installments of 1150/- each which included interest. At the time of reimbursement of loan, the complainant handed over cheques duly signed and filled in for Rs. 1150/- each, to the opposite party, drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Raman Branch of his A/c No. 55126636795. The complainant paid total finance amount to the opposite party and accordingly he asked the opposite party to issue No Due Certificate and handover the relevant documents for cancellation of hire purchase from the Registration Certificate of the motor cycle, but the opposite party is insisting the complainant to pay some more amount on account of fine imposed by them for late payment of the installments. The complainant alleged that he handed over the cheques to the opposite party being the installments of each month for encashing the cheque at the relevant time. He always had money in his account for encashment of cheques but the concerned officials of the opposite party did not present the cheques at the relevant time. In this way, there is no fault on the part of the complainant in paying the installments after due date. The opposite party has alleged that the cheque No. 269686 was dishonoured by the banker of the complainant and they have charged Rs. 250/-. As per statement of account issued by the banker of the complainant, a sum of Rs. 75/- has been debited for dishonour of the cheque and the opposite party cannot charge any extra amount. The opposite party also alleges that complainant paid two EMIs late and Rs. 788/- are being charged for delay in making payment of said two EMIs. The said two EMIs relate to the months of April and May, 2007 whereas the complainant had sufficient amount in his account during that period, but the concerned officials themselves did not present the cheque on due dates for encashment of the EMIs rather they got encashed the said cheques in the last week of May, 2007. This fact is clear from the statement of account of the complainant. The complainant alleged that the opposite party is withholding the No Due Certificate as well as the relevant documents for getting the hypothecation cancelled, intentionally. He got issued a legal notice dated 25-2-2011, but the opposite party without going through its own record, gave reply. Hence, he has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to issue No Due Certificate; hand over the relevant documents and pay compensation and cost.

2. The opposite party filed its written reply and took preliminary objections that present complaint is hopelessly time barred as the complainant has made last payment towards the loan account on 26-07-2007 i.e. four years had already lapsed; this Forum has no jurisdiction in view of the 'Arbitration Clause' mentioned in the contract entered into between the parties. On merits, it has been pleaded that the complainant at the time of advancement of loan has submitted ten post dated EMI cheques of Rs. 1150/- and agreed that balance 14 EMI cheques would be issued at a later date. The complainant had issued 10 cheque vide Nos. 594682 to 594690 for the 7^th of each month for the period starting from 7-8-2005 to 7-5-2006 for Rs. 1150/- each. It has been pleaded that complainant has availed a loan of Rs. 23,000/- for his two wheeler and executed a loan agreement. As per Bank's records the invoice amount of the vehicle is Rs. 31,500/- and Rs. 8500/- has been received as margin money. The said vehicle is hypothecated with the opposite party. As per terms and conditions of the loan agreement, complainant was required to pay the loan amount of Rs. 23000/- alongwith interest charges of Rs. 4600/- total amounting to Rs. 27,600/- in 24 equal monthly installments of Rs. 1150/-. The loan tenure was for the period of 24 months till July, 2007. The regular remittance of EMI for the repayment of the loan is the essence of contract and in case of any default and non-payment in monthly installments, it attracts additional interest @3% per month on defaulted installments. It has been admitted that Cheque No. 269686 was bounced and the opposite party is within its right to claim the cheque bouncing charges and outstanding amount accrued due to delay in repayment of loan EMI. The same charges are part and parcel of the loan agreement which has been mentioned in First Schedule of the loan agreement. The statement of account of the complainant clearly indicates that complainant did not provide the complete EMI cheques otherwise there is no question of making payment in cash. The details of payment receipt through bank cash collection receipts are as under :-

   Sr.No. Receipt date Receipt No. Amount

   1. 2-11-2006 CRP242206 1,150/-

   2. 29-12-2006 CRP292663 1,150/-

   3. 30-05-2007 CRP936335 1,150/-

   4. 30-05-2007 CRP936334 1,150/-

   5. 26-06-2007 CRQ045826 1,150/-

   6. 26-07-2007 CRQ119854 1,150/-

   The opposite party has pleaded that as on date an amount of Rs. 1087/- is outstanding which include cheque bouncing charges of Rs. 250/- and Rs. 837/- as additional interest on account of delay in repayment of loan installments. The opposite party has even sent a clarification letter cum reply, but the complainant instead of making payment has filed this frivolous complaint.

3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. The submission of the complainant is that he availed loan amounting to 23,000/- from the opposite party and hypothecated his motorcycle bearing registration No. PB-03-2495 with it. At the time of advancement of loan, he has submitted post dated cheques of Rs. 1150/- against all the installments with the opposite party. The opposite party did not deposit the cheque No. 269686 in the bank at the relevant time due to which cheque was dishonoured. The complainant alleged that due to dishonour of said cheque, the banker has charged Rs. 75/- only whereas the opposite party has charged Rs. 250/- in this regard. He submitted that the allegation of the opposite party is that he paid two EMI i.e. of April and May, 2007, late whereas there was sufficient balance in the account of the complainant at that time and the fault is on the part of the officials of the opposite party who has not presented the cheque on due date for encashment.

6. On the other hand, the version of the opposite party is that the complainant had given only 10 post dated cheques whereas the installments of loan were 24. He had agreed to give remaining cheques later on which he did not submit. The complainant has made payment in cash of some of the installments as is evident from his account statement. Thus, it clearly proves that he did not provide post dated cheques for all the installments. An amount of Rs. 1087/- is outstanding against the complainant which include cheque bouncing charges of Rs. 250/- and Rs. 837/- as additional interest on account of delay in repayment of loan installment. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for opposite party raised legal objection that complaint before this forum is not maintainable as the dispute pertains to account between the parties and it cannot be said to be a consumer dispute.

7. The opposite party has taken preliminary objections that complaint is time barred as the last installment was paid by the complainant on 26-07-2007. The opposite party has itself pleaded in its written reply that some amount is still outstanding against the complainant and No Due Certificate is yet to be issued to the complainant. Hence, it is a continuous cause of action and complaint is within time. The second objection taken by the opposite party is that this Forum has no jurisdiction in view of arbitration clause mentioned in the agreement. To approach Consumer Forum is an additional remedy under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 3 of the Act envisage “ Act not in derogation of any other law – The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.” Hence, this objection is also not tenable.

8. A perusal of record reveals that the relationship of the complainant with the opposite party is that of borrower and debtor. Dispute pertains to accounts between the parties particularly when one alleges that nothing is outstanding towards him whereas the other's plea is that an amount of Rs. 1087/- as on 23-09-2011 is outstanding. In such a circumstances, this complaint is not maintainable before this forum because the version and counter version in the pleadings of the parties relate to accounts which can only be adjudicated on production of numerous documents. To arrive at a correct conclusion, it has to be seen that charges levied by the opposite party are as per rules and regulations. For this elaborate evidence is required to be adduced and this Forum has summary procedure. Hence, this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum because the version and counter-version relate to accounts. In this view of the matter, we get support from the observations of the Hon'ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh in case titled C.B. Singh (Dr.) Vs HDFC Bank & Anr., 2009 (4) CLT 563, wherein, it has been held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 14 – Jurisdiction – Banking service – Vehicle finance – Interest – Rate of interest – Dispute with regard to not charging proper interest and discriminating between different debtors and charging different rate of interest – Such matter does not lie in the Consumer Fora because Consumer Fora is to allow interest as agreed.”

Further, the support can be sought by the law laid down by Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in case titled Omega Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Bank of India & Ors., I (1995) CPJ 1 (NC), wherein it has been held that:-

“(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 - “Jurisdiction” - “Banking Services” - “Excess Interest Charged” - Requires scrutiny of over 700 entries – Whether can be adjudicated under this Act? - No.”

9. Since this Forum cannot try and adjudicate this complaint in view of the discussion made above, merits of the case are not being touched.

10. In the result, complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority/court for getting his grievances redressed, if so advised and permitted by law.

    A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced

08-11-2011

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

( Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member