Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/42/2019

Krishan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indusland Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Anand Kumar

12 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

      CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.      42 of 2019

                                          DATE OF INSTITUTION:                 18.02.2019

                                                      DATE OF ORDER:                            12.04.2024

 

Krishan Kumar son of Sh. Om Kanwar R/o VPO Dohalka Dhanbad, District Bhiwani.

 

            ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Branch Manager, IndusInd Bank Ltd., House NO.7, Vijay Nagar, Opposite Easy Day Departmental Store, Near Bharat Public School, Hansi Road, Bhiwani.

 

2. General Manager, IndusInd Bank Ltd., SCO 328, Sector-9, opposite Bus Stand, Panchkula-134109.

….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 1986.

 

 

BEFORE:        Mrs.Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member

 

Present:-         Sh. Anand Kumar, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Rajender Verma, Advocate for OPs assisted by

Sh. Rahul Sheoran, Advocate.

 

ORDER:

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member:

 

1.                     Brief facts of this case are that complainant approached OP No.1 for loan of Rs.8.00 lac for purchase of a Dumper/Truck.  In October 2016, OP sanctioned a loan of Rs.8.00 lac and hypothecated the vehicle and took R.C. of the vehicle in its possession. It is averred that Op No.1 calculated interest Rs.2,18,000/- and Rs.40,000/- as other expenses on this loan amount, as such, the total amount payable by complainant was Rs.10,58,000/- in 36 installments payable by 12.09.2019. It is stated that in April 2018, the Dumper met with an accident and Rs.6.00 lac were spent on its repair. Complainant informed insurance company, it sanctioned Rs.5,50,000/- and transferred this amount in the loan account of complainant operating with the OP bank. It is alleged that the OP bank have not refunded the balance amount of Rs.2,73,400/- to the complainant even after adjustment of loan amount as per their statement of account. So, legal notice was issued upon the OPs, however, Rs.1,28,300/- refunded by OP bank and retained Rs.1,44,700/- without any reason. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of Ops resulting into monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment to the complainant. In the end, complainant has sought directions against OPs to pay Rs.1,70,700/- to the complainant alongwith future interest and other expenses.  Any other relief, to which this Commission deems fit, has also been sought.

2.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and tendered reply raising preliminary objections qua cause of action, locus standi, maintainability of complaint, territorial jurisdiction and concealment of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that after sanctioning loan of Rs.8.00 lac, complainant was to pay Rs.10,58,400/- in 36 installments (Rs.31,800/- x 20, Rs.29800/- x14 and Rs.5200/- x 1). The vehicle was hypothecated in the name of OPs. It is submitted that complainant paid the installments of loan as per terms of agreement and one installment was irregular and the same was paid after overdue of four months. Claim of Rs.5,50,000/- was received from the insurance company with regard to loss of vehicle in the accident. The Ops after adjusting a sum of Rs.4,21,667/- towards the remaining loan amount on 04.10.2018, excess amount of Rs.1,28,333/- was refunded to the complainant on  03.10.2018. Thus complainant is not entitled to the alleged amount of Rs.1,44,700/- alongwith interest etc. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                     Ld. counsel for complainant tendered in evidence, affidavit of complainant as Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence.

4.                     Ld. counsel for OPs tendered in evidence, documents Annexure R-1 and also made a statement that written statement filed on behalf of OPs may be read into their evidence and then closed the same.

5.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. Written arguments filed from both the sides.

6.                     It is admitted case of OP bank that as per loan agreement, the complainant was to pay Rs.10,58,400/- in 36 installments and the loan was to complete on 12.09.2019. The version of OP bank is that after receiving Rs.5,50,000/- from insurance company of the accidental vehicle and adjusting the same towards the loan account of complainant, a sum of Rs.1,28,333/- was refunded which has been admitted by complainant. As such, complainant is not entitled to any more amount from it.

7.                     The case of complainant is that the OP bank has received Rs.12,73,571/- from it.  Since, a lump sum amount of Rs.5,50,000/- was deposited in the loan account, the OPs gave him rebate in interest of Rs.23,043/- and thus complainant was to pay Rs.10,35,357/- against the loan amount. In this way after getting difference of the paid amount and due amount (Rs.12,73,571/- - Rs.10,35,357/-) comes to Rs.2,38,214 which was payable to complainant by the OPs. However, they refunded only a sum of Rs.1,28,333/-, as such, the complainant was entitled to Rs.1,09,881/-, however, as per complainant the said amount has come to Rs.1,44,000/- while accruing interest. The complainant to corroborate his version has drawn our attention towards statement of account dated 26.11.2018 (Annexure C-1) which reveals that there is overdue of Rs.2,73,400/- (-2,73,400.00) in the loan account of complainant, meaning thereby that complainant has paid Rs.2,73,400/- in excess.

8.                     On the contrary, OPs rebut the said contentions from complainant side but did not prove the same by placing on record any cogent and convincing evidence.  Merely to say that after adjusting the amount in loan account of complainant remaining amount was refunded to complainant is not sufficient.   

9.                     Taking into account the contentions made by complainant side as well as OPs in their written arguments and going through the entire record on case file, we have come to conclusion that after adjusting all the amounts viz. paid installments and insurance amount in the loan account of complainant and refunding Rs.1,28,333/- to the complainant, he was still entitled to Rs.87,238/-  (Rs.12,73,571/- (-) Rs.10,58,000/- = Rs.2,15,571/-  (-) Rs.1,28,333/-) from the OPs but non-paying of said amount, indulge the OPs in gross negligence as well as deficiency in service on their part which must have caused the complainant financial loss besides mental and physical harassment. Hence, the present complaint is allowed and OPs, jointly and severally, are directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of this order:-

(i)        To pay a sum of Rs.87,238/- (Rs. Eighty seven thousand two hundred thirty eight) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual realization.

(ii)       To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) as compensation for harassment as well as for litigation expenses.

                        In case of default, the OPs shall liable to pay simple interest @ 9% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default.

                        Further, if this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated: 12.04.2024.