Delhi

East Delhi

CC/596/2013

SUSHILA DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

KOTAK MAHINDRA - Opp.Party(s)

11 Oct 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

                                                          CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC NO.596/2013
 

Smt. Sushila Devi Mittal

57, Block-BD,

Pitam Pura, New Delhi-110088

Complainant

Vs

Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.

Plot no. 4, flat no.1-6

DDA Building Complex

District Centre,

Near Scope Minar,

Laxmi Nagar

New Delhi-110092                   

Opposite Party

 

                                                                                      Date of Admission - 01/08/2013

                                                                                    Date of Order          - 24/12/2015

SH. N. A. ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant purchased FIAT LINEA Car on 22/08/2010 from Him Motors Pvt Ltd for a sum of Rs.6,89,000/-. Loan of Rs.4,99,000/- was approved on 23/08/2010. Kotak Mahindra Pvt. Ltd. fixes EMI of Rs.16,043/- staring from 10^th Sep. 2010 up to 10/08/2013. EMIs linked with the complainant Kotak Mahindra A/C No.01740110019314. He was paying EMIs without any default except in June 2013. Intimation was given by the respondent on 14/06/2013, someone from Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd Collection Agency namely M/s Chawla called complainant for the collection of the Cheque or Cash of Rs.16,043/- against missed EMI. He came on 29/06/2013 and cheque No. 040474 drawn on SBI for Rs.16,043/- was collected which was cleared on 02/07/2013. On 07/July for 10/July EMI for Rs.16043/- instead Rs.10,709.73 was issued from his saving bank account, Rs.5,333.27/- was already debited on 10/06/2013 against June 13 EMI. A complaint was lodged, they have collected excess amount on 29/06/2013 when they have already collected Rs.5,333.27. On 10/06/2013 respondent charges fine for missed EMI and won’t issue the NOC to remove HP endorsement. The respondent has not refunded the excess recovered. The complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and return of the excess amount together with the cost of litigation.

            Respondent filed their reply where in they have demanded that the loan came to an end on 10/08/2013. The total amount including the interest which was to be paid by the complainant was Rs.5,98,488.49 and upon closer of the said account it has been found that the amount recovered is Rs.600679.49  hence the amount of Rs.2,191/- is payable by the respondent to the complainant and they are willing to pay the said amount. The EMI was automatically credited into the account of the respondent from the bank account of the complainant. On account of default of the complainant ECS got dishonored and the said amount was recovered at a later stage.

            Heard and perused the record.

            The complainant counsel argued that in the reply filed by the respondent this fact has not been denied nor in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent by Sh. Raj Shekhar Rao the amount of Rs.16,043/- of the EMI for the month of June 2013 was not recovered and it was not paid by the complainant through cheque No. 40474. The same is also reflected in the statement of the SBI, it has been filed as CW-1/4. The statement of the bank account at Kotak Mahindra Bank also shows that the amount of Rs.5,333.27 was credited into the account of the complainant. This fact since not been denied that Rs.16,043/- was recovered through cheque from the complainant towards the EMI of the June. The amount of Rs.5333.27 could be recovered on 10 June 2013 when they have recovered this part payment of the EMI. On 10 June 2013 the total amount of EMI Rs.16,043/- should not have been recovered from the complainant. It is admitted to the respondent that they have recovered excess amount from the complainant. It is sufficient proof that the respondent is indulging in unfair trade practice. The recovery in excess of the amount due is definitely a irregularity and illegality. Complainant since being a vigilant customer could note this mischief. This also indicates that the respondent financial company was not maintaining the discipline and using the agencies, which have been condemned by the Courts.

            We allow this complaint. We direct the respondent to return to the complainant the amount of Rs.5333.27 together with 9% interest thereon from the date it was taken out from her account. We further imposed the penalty of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment, mental pain and agony cause to the complainant of the act adopted by the respondent company. This amount shall also include the cost of litigation.

Copy of this order be provided to both the parties.

 

(POONAM MALHOTRA)                                        ( N.A.ZAIDI)                                                                                                                MEMBER                                                         PRESIDENT