This case has arisen out of a complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The fact of the case is that the petitioner purchased a Hero motorcycle with financial assistance of L&T Finance Ltd/O.P.No-2, who sanctioned a loan amounting Rs.34,342/-, to be repayable by 30 EMIs of Rs.2,453/- and the petitioner paid some down payment and Shankar Auto Centre delivered the vehicle to the petitioner. He is plying the vehicle on road and paid EMIs through his Axis Bank Ltd by post dated cheque but due to financial crises petitioner unable to deposit cheque amount Rs.2,453/- for that cheque has been bounced due to insufficient fund on 14.04.2018 so he paid said amount by cash on 25.04.2018 vide money Receipt No:-S24041862927. Subsequently he observed that O.P.No-2 further received a monthly premium Rs.2,453/- for the month of April on 27.04.2018 through cheque. O.P.No-2 received two installments in one month, in that case one month premium is extra which is lying with the O.P.No-2. He contacted with the O.P.No-1 & 2 but O.P.No-2 told that extra amount will be adjusted in future. He several time contacted with O.P.No-1 & 2 to remove the deficiency but they did not take any step. Thus petitioner filed complaint with prayer for direction to the O.Ps to refund excess amount Rs.2,453/- with interest from the date of receipt, compensation of Rs.10,000/- for unnecessary harassment and deficiency in service & litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
O.P.No-1&2 contested the case by filing W.V stating that the petitioner is a borrower under L&T Finance Company who purchased motor cycle on taking loan, to be repayable by 30 EMIs and the petitioner deposited total 30 nos post dated cheques amounting to Rs.2,453/- each and as per schedule time O.Ps concern deposited the cheques to its banker for clearing the cheque amount in every month but in the month of April, 2018 cheque has been bounced due to in sufficient funds and subsequently the petitioner paid balance outstanding loan amount by cash, but as per ECS procedure the subsequent cheques have been bounced month by month and due to that reason total cheque charge stands Rs.4,550/- & other LPP charge stands Rs.266/- and the total outstanding dues Rs.4,816/- is pending upon the petitioner which he is bound to pay. There is no deficiency of service on their part so they pray for dismissal of the case.
O.P.No-3/Axis Bank Ltd submits W.V stating that the petitioner supposed to pay EMIs Rs.2,453/- to Finance Company/O.P.No-1&2, debitable from his savings A/c No:9110100438682227 maintained at O.P.No-3/Bank vide ECS. However, said account was not sufficient balance to process the ECS of Rs.2,453/- for the month of April, 2018 and therefore the ECS was rightly bounced. The petitioner funded the account after 12.04.2018 and the ECS was reprocessed on 26.04.2018. The petitioner did not seek any relief against O.P.No-3 so it also prays for dismissal of the case.
P o i n t s f o r d e c i s i o n
- Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps which gives rise cause of action of this complaint?
- Is the petitioner entitled to get relief(s) as prayed for?
D e c i s i o n s w i t h r e a s o n
Admittedly, the petitioner being a service holder purchased Hero Motor vehicle Duet, DX Panther, Black Metallic from Shankar Auto Centre, Siliguri More, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur, with the financial assistance of Rs.34,342/- from erstwhile Family Credit Limited/Finance Company, at present L & T Finance Ltd/O.P.No-2, (disbursed on 26.12.2016). Though petitioner stated that at the time of purchasing said vehicle he paid some down payment not relevant in deciding the case.
It is also admitted that the petitioner agreed to pay sanctioned amount Rs.34,342/- by 30 EMIs installment period 05.02.2017 to 05.07.2019 & he deposited 30 nos. post dated cheques amounting to Rs.2,453/- each to Finance Company, to be encashed/debitable from petitioner’s savings A/c No:-9110100438682227 maintained at Axis Bank Limited, Raiganj Branch, vide/through ECS.
The case of the petitioner is that due to financial crises he was unable to deposit cheque amount Rs.2,453/- in the month of April, 2018 and cheque has been bounced due to insufficient fund on 14.04.2018, later he deposited said amount by cash on 25.04.2018 vide Money Receipt No:-S24041862927. The statement of account of L&T Finance for the month of April, 2018 reflected it.
O.P.No-3 the banker of petitioner stated that petitioner’s account was not sufficiently balanced to process the ECS of Rs.2,453/- for the month of April, 2018 and therefore the ECS was rightly bounced, later he funded the account after 12.04.2018 and the ECS was reprocessed on 26.04.2018. The statement of account of Axis Bank Ltd for the month of April, 2018 also corroborate the same.
The petitioner’s case is that subsequently he observed that O.P.No-2 received monthly premium of Rs.2,453/- for the month of April on 27.04.2018 through a cheque. The statement of account of L&T Finance for the month of April, 2018 reflects so.
Petitioner’s claim is that O.P.No-2 received cash Rs.2,453/- & further Rs.2,453/- through cheque clearing on 25.04.2018 & 27.04.2018 respectively i.e amount of 02 EMIs in a month and realized amount of 31 EMIs in total, thus he prays for refund of the amount equal to 1 EMI Rs.2,453/-.
O.P.No-1 & 2 replied that in the month of April, 2018 they deposited the cheque for clearing but cheque has been bounced due to insufficient funds, subsequently petitioner paid it by cash, but as per ECS procedure the subsequent cheques have been bounced month by month and due to that reason total cheque bounce charges stands Rs.4,550/- & LPP Charge stands Rs.266/- and the total outstanding dues stands Rs.4,816/- which the petitioner is liable to pay. The statement of account of L&T Finance reflects the claim of Finance company as correct.
Under above facts and discussion, we are of the opinion that the petitioner was defaulted in payment of EMIs in time, resultantly loan account bore cheque bounce charge & overdue (OD Charge/LPP) of Rs.4,550/- & Rs.266/- respectively and the total outstanding dues stands Rs.4,816/- & the petitioner is liable to pay outstanding dues to the Finance Company, instead he has filed this complaint only in order to save his skin and there was no deficiency of service on the part of Finance company concerned/O.P.No-1 & 2 as well as O.P.No-3/Axis Bank Limited & consequently the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.
In the result the claim fails. Hence, it is,
O R D E R E D
that the C.C No-44/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest against O.Ps but without any cost.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
