Haryana

Karnal

115/2012

Angrej Singh S/o Jarnail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Lalit Chopra

23 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No.115 of 2012

                                                             Date of instt.:24.02.2012

                                                               Date of decision 22.02.2017

 

Angrej Sing son of Shri Jarnail Singh resident of House no.503/485, Kalandri Gate, Sushad Manjil, Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited through its Branch Manager, Sector-12, Karnal.

2. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited through its Branch Manager, SCO no.153-155, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri Apaar Singh Bedi Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri Gaurav Sharma Advocate for opposite parties.

                    

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that the opposite parties sanctioned a loan of Rs.15,65,000/- for purchasing Terex Vectra Backhoe Loader TX-760. The loan was to be deposited in 35 installments. He had deposited 36 installments with the opposite party. He was assured that after calculation, the excess amount deposited by him would be refunded. After depositing the installments he requested the opposite party to issue “No Objection Certificate” as well as cancellation of hypothecation of the Loader, but despite his repeated visits to the office of opposite parties neither No Objection Certificate was issued nor the hypothecation of Loader was got cancelled, due to which he suffered mental pain and agony.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the complaint and that complainant has concealed the material facts from this forum.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The loan was to be repaid in 35 monthly installments of Rs.52100/- each commencing from 10.3.2008 and every installment was to be paid on or before 10^th day of every month, but the complainant had not deposited the installments in time. Most of the installments were deposited by the complainant after due date. In order to discharge the liability, the complainant had also issued cheques, out of which 30 cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. A sum of Rs.2,78,053/- was due against the complainant on 28.7.2012 with regard to overdue interest, cheques dishonoured charges @ Rs.750/- per cheque and legal charges. No Objection Certificate and Hypothecation Cancellation Certificate would be issued to the complainant after depositing the entire due amount. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A  and documents Ex.C1 to C4 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Kanwar Lal Chaudhary Ex.OPW1/A and documents Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                Admittedly, the complainant had obtained loan of Rs.15,65,000/- from the opposite parties for purchasing Terex Vectra Backhoe Loader. Loan was to be repaid in 35 monthly installments of Rs.52,100/-each. As per the case of the complainant he had deposited 36 installments. On the other hand, opposite parties have asserted that an amount of Rs.2,78,053/- was due in the loan account of complainant on 28.07.2012.

7.                The opposite parties produced the account statement Ex.D2, according to which an amount of Rs.2,94,018.20 was due in the loan account of the complainant upto 30.9.2012. The complainant has also produced the copy of the account statement supplied to him by the opposite parties as Ex.C4 by way of additional evidence, according to which the total amount of Rs.35,68,310/- was deposited by him towards installments. The dispute between the parties is with regard to the overdue interest on account of late depositing the installments, the amount charged with regard to dishonour of the cheques of the complainant and the legal charges. Learned counsel for the complainant pointed out that as per Agreement Schedule an amount of Rs.500/- per instance regarding dishonour of cheques could be charged by the opposite parties, however, the opposite parties charged Rs.750/- per cheque. Thus, from this document it is emphatically clear that demand raised by the opposite parties @ Rs.750/- per cheque for dishonour of the cheques is not justified. As per the Agreement Schedule the opposite parties are entitled to recover overdue interest as per clause 2.7 and that too compound interest with monthly rests. There is no reference in the Agreement Schedule regarding charging any legal charges from the complainant. Thus, it is established that the opposite parties are entitled to charge overdue interest as per the agreement on delayed payments of the installments and Rs.500/- per cheque for dishonour charges. The interest is to be calculated by the opposite parties as per agreement. The demand raised by the opposite parties @ Rs.750/- per cheque for dishonour of the cheques, against the agreement certainly amounted to deficiency in service. It is also admitted fact that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 5.7.2011, as is evident from Ex.C3. However, the said amount has not been adjusted by the opposite parties in his loan account, which also amounts to deficiency in service.

8.                In view of the foregoing discussion, the complaint is accepted partly and opposite parties are directed to prepare fresh statement of account as per terms of the Agreement Schedule by calculating the amount for dishonour of the cheques @ Rs.500/- per cheque and overdue interest as per clause 2.7 of  the Agreement for delayed payments, and send the correct statement of account to the complainant within 30 days and thereafter the complainant would deposit the said amount within 30 days of the receipt of statement of account. The opposite parties are further directed to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ and cancellation of the hypothecation within 30 days after depositing the entire amount calculated by the complainant as per the fresh statement of account prepared in accordance with the direction given above. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.11,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 22.2.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member