BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.52 of 2014
Date of institution: 05.02.2015
Date of Decision 24.06.2015
Anuj Goel S/o Sh. Purushotam Dass Goel R/o Flat No. 08, Simran Apartment, Ekta Vihar, Baltana, Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab-140604.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd, having its registered office at Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400001 through its Chairman/Managing Director.
2. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd, having its branch office situated at SCO 33-34-35, 4th floor, near Regional Passport Office, sector 34-A, Chandigarh (UT) through its Branch Manager.
3. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd, having its branch office situated at C/o Chopra Tower, Istr floor, Ambala-Chandigarh Road Derra Bassi 140506, Punjab through Branch Manager.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh, Member.
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Arun Kumar, counsel for the OPs along with Sh. Anurag Sharma, Zonal Manager of the OPs.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that he had purchased Hyundai Eon Era Plus car on 08.06.2013 from Berkeley Hyundai Showroom, Panchkula and financed by opposite parties (for short ‘the OPs’). He was assured by the OPs that valuable service would be provided to him and on their assurance the complainant executed a loan agreement dated 08.06.2013 with the OPs. One of the officials of the OPs namely Mr. Gaurav completed the documentation part and provided loan account no. 2638119 for the car and he had taken six security cheques bearing cheque Nos. 016895, 016896, 016897, 016898, 016899 and 016900 drawn from Union Bank of India. The OPs assured him that security cheques would be used only in case of default and will be returned to him after the completion of the payment of all the installments. The complainant also provided 14 post dated cheques (PDC) to the OPs for payment of monthly installments. The complainant had provided the above said post dated cheques (PDC) till the completion of the period upto 10.08.2014. Thereafter, complainant provided subsequent post dated cheques for three months i.e. September, October, November, 2014. On 11.09.2014, he received SMS deducting Rs.5,7,15/- from his account in relation to payment of monthly installments towards the loan facility. Thereafter, on 17.09.2014 he again received SMS regarding presentation of another cheque which got bounced due to less fund in his account. The complainant immediately contacted the OPs regarding it but no satisfactory reply was given by them. He was informed by one of the OPs that on 11.09.2014 his security cheque was bounced. The complainant was shocked because he has already provided post dated cheque (PDC) for the payment of the monthly installment and OPs had wrongly presented the security cheque in addition to post dated cheque (PDC). When the complainant asked the OPs to rectify the mistake they instead of rectifying their mistake used abusive language to the complainant. The OPs again did act of deficiency and unfair trade practice on 13.10.2014 by presenting another security cheque which also bounced. This three times repeated act of the OPs by presenting security cheques in addition post dated cheques caused lot of harassment and mental tension to the complainant. Further one of the officials of the OPs i.e. Mr. Negi clarified that an email has been received pertaining to the bouncing of the cheque issued in the month of December, 2014 and, therefore, asked the complainant to clear the payment for this month, otherwise his name shall be forwarded in the list of defaulters i.e. CIBIL . The complainant had verified the accounts detail from its banker which transpired that on 13.12.2014 the above said cheque had got cleared and the OPs had realized the payment of the installment for the month of December, 2014. The complainant had immediately informed this to the OPs but they did not bother. The complainant had also sent message regarding it to the OPs but they illegally deducted an amount of Rs. 1/- as bouncing charges. Later on the OPs issued a letter dated 20.01.2015 mentioning that the cheques were presented by Customer Manager of the OPs due to oversight and had no intention to cheat the complainant. The OPs have sent a demand drat of Rs. 650/- to the complainant for it but failed to provide any justified reason of the deficiency and unfair trade practice adopted by them. Moreover the OPs had charged a penalty of Rs. 500/- per transaction in the said three months which comes to Rs. 1500/- which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
Lastly the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to reverse the wrong entries made by the OPs for the months of September, October, November and December, 2014 and to waive off penalty of Rs. 1501/- in his account; to pay penalty charges of Rs. 450/- deducted by the bank on account of bouncing of the cheques and to delete the name of the complainant from the list of defaulters i.e. CIBIL and to pay Rs. 10,000/- for conveyance charges and also pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- per cheque bounce on account of causing mental pain and harassment and to pay Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses and to pass any other order which this Forum deem fit and proper.
2. After the service of the notice OP Nos. 1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed the reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; no cause of action arose to the complainant against the OPs; this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum; there is an arbitration clause No. 15 in the loan agreement and this dispute is to be tried by the Arbitrator. Thus OPs prayed for the dismissal of this complaint on the above mentioned grounds. On merits also OPs denied all the allegations made against them but admitted that the another security cheque bearing nos. 041536, 016896 and 016897 were presented in addition to presentation of post dated cheques in the account of the complainant due to oversight of the OPs. Lastly the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint as there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on their part.
3. To support his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-10.
4. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs have tendered in evidence affidavit of Jai Narayan, their Litigation Officer.
5. We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the OPs and also gone through the written arguments of the complainant.
6. Admittedly the complainant has availed car loan for purchase of Hyundai EON Era Plus car on 08.06.2013 from the OPs. Admittedly the complainant has paid six post dated cheques as guarantee and 14 post dated cheques for discharge of his obligation towards EMI against the said loan. The grievance of the complainant is that the OPs without his consent and without any necessity has used the three post dated guarantee cheques knowingly fully well that the post dated cheques in their possession for discharge of EMIs were valid. As per the complainant nos. 041536, 016896 and 016897 were bounced and due to cheque bounce the complainant has been penalized for a sum of Rs.150/- for each bounced cheque and further the complainant’s name has been shown on the CIBIL records as a defaulter. The acts of the OPs i.e. the presentation of the security cheques without his consent and without any necessity when the other cheques for EMIs were available with the bank, causing financial loss and loss of prestige to the complainant is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The OPs in their reply as well as affidavit have admitted having presented inadvertently the security cheques and also agreed to compensate the complainant for the penalty imposed on cheque bounce. Therefore, the OPs have sent a bank draft of Rs.650/- dated 18.12.2014 to the complainant alongwith apology letter Ex.C-9. The grievance of the complainant is that such compensation is not adequate as the OPs have still not removed his name from the CIBIL and not given him the NOC as well as returned the bounced cheques and not even the statement of accounts has been given to him though he has cleared the outstanding amount of the loan.
7. The issue of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is writ large on the part of the OPs though the Ops have tendered the apology and admitted their mistake as an inadvertent act. The inadvertent act on the part of the OPs is not simplicitor rather it is an act of indifferent attitude on the part of the bank which has caused not only financial loss to the complainant for not fault on his part and has also lowered the prestige of the complainant by putting the name of the complainant in the CIBIL site. So much so that even after the complainant has sent the E-mail dated 09.12.2014 Ex.C-8 till date the OPs have not took any steps to get the name of the complainant removed from the CIBIL site which as on date is showing the complainant as defaulter despite the fact that the complainant has already cleared the outstanding of loan account. Further non issue of no due certificate and statement of account till date and there is no response of the OPs. Thus, the non removal of name of the complainant from CIBIL site, non issuance of No due certificate and statement of accounts and non return of the dishonoured and other unused guarantee cheques by the OPs cannot be in any manner termed as inadvertent error on the part of the OPs. In fact the indifferent attitude on the part of the OPs can be safely termed as act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The complaint, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated. For above findings we take the support of the decision of Hon’ble West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in State Bank of India, Samriddhi Bhavan, Kolkata & Others Vs. Dr. Latika Lahiri & Others 2013(2) CLT 201.
8. Hence, the complaint is hereby allowed with the following directions to the OPs to:
(a) get the name of the complainant removed from the CIBIL Site immediately.
(b) issue the No Objection Certificate and statement of account against the car loan account of the complainant.
(c) return the three bounced and three unused security cheques to the complainant
(d) pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.Twenty thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.
Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
June 24, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
