Delhi

StateCommission

A/28/2016

DCB BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHIPAL SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

14 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                                                         Date of Decision : 14.12.2016

                        Date of arguments heard : 07.12.2016

 

First Appeal No. 28/2016

 

DCB BANK LTD.

A-SET HUSE 7/56, 3^RD FLOR

DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAR

KAROL BAGH

NEW DELHI-110005

……Appellant

Vs.

 

MAHIPAL SINGH

R/o H.NO. 70

POLE NO. 57, KH. NO. 1074

VILLAGE BHALSWA

DELHI-33.

…Opposite party

CORAM

 

O.P. Gupta,Member(Judicial)

 

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.             Being dissatisfied with the order dated 21.7.15 passed by CDRF-VI, New Delhi District in CC No.567/12, the OP has come in the present appeal.
2.             Facts enumerated in the order of the District Forum are that appellant bank issued four vehicle loans,  installments were initially paid through post dated cheques and later on through home visits against receipts. After payment of last installment, the respondent herein was alarmed to find that some outstanding were due against him.  The sum total of the sum is Rs.1,37,983.37.
3.             Appellant contended that all dues related to late payment penalty and dishonour charges of cheques given by respondent. Payments of all EMIs were admitted.
4.             The District Forum found that if the internal department of appellant/OP was not diligent in depositing the cheque, it can not attribute its negligence to respondent/complainat by penalizing him with overdue charges. Similarly, when appellant/OP was sending collection agent regularly after due date, the respondent/complainant was justified in bonafide belief that payment is being made in time.  The appellant/OP did not place iota of evidence that it sent receiving agent before due date or said agent was refused payment by the respondent/complainant. Appellant/OP never intimated the respondent/complainant that overdue charges or bouncing charges were payable though it was regularly sending its officer to collect EMIs. Hence the District Forum directed appellant/OP to issue No  Objection Certificate that nothing was due from the respondent/complainant. It also awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation for negligence and inconvenience, harassment suffered by the respondent/complainant to get NOC. Rs.10,000/- were also awarded as litigation expenses. The order was to be complied with within 30 days failing which 12% interest was payable.
5.             In appeal, the grievance of the appellant/OP is that overdue charges and dishonour charges were payable as per agreement. So the District Forum was not justified in passing the impugned order.
6.             I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments.
7.             The Counsel for the appellant submitted that statement of account are there on record.  Statement of one loan account is at page 107-111, statement of other loan account is at page 112-116, statement of third loan of account is at page 117-123 and that of fourth account are at page 124-128. He also drew my attention towards copy of agreement at page 74 which shows that dishonour charges were leviable @ Rs.500/- per cheque and interest was chargeable @ 3% per month (36 % p.a.). Counsel for appellant submitted that appellant bank is not a schedule bank and is not controlled by RBI. According to him consumer court can not go beyond the terms of agreement.
8.             On the other hand the Counsel for the respondent submitted that if the agreement is under coercion or amongst persons of unequal means, the court can interfere with the terms which are not fair. Debtor/borrower is at the receiving end. He  has no objection but to sign on doted  lines. If interest of 36% p.a. is not unfair, there can be nothing more unfair than it. Similarly the dishonour cheques in most of the banks are Rs.112/- per cheque. Charging of Rs.500/- for dishonour of one cheque is un-conciousable.
9.             Counsel the the respondent went on to submit that the District Forum has rightly observed that mode of payment stood altered by continuous practice of appellant sending its representative to collect the installments in cash against receipt. When the appellant was getting the amount in cash, it had no justification to present the cheque and claim dishonour charges.
10.             There is no reason why the respondent was not informed on every occasion that his account is being debited with dishonoured charges and late payment penalty. It is quite strange that appellant bank woke up only when the entire payment has been received and the respondent applied for NOC. To allow the bank to claim Rs.1,37,983.37 as interest and dishonour charges is shocking. The things could have been different, had this amount been of non payment of EMIs.  But that is not the case of the appellant bank.  All amounts have been paid, almost every time with delay of 5 to 7 days.
11.             For the forgoing reasons I do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. The appeal fails and is dismissed. However, the order is modified to  the extent that the appellant bank would issue NOC within 30 days. Directions to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation, Rs.10,000/- as litigations expenses and interest @12% are set aside as that would be burdening the appellant bank too much. After all the respondent is also defaulter to some extent and he must not be rewarded.
12.             Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
13.             A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and one copy be also sent to the District Forum-VI, New Delhi District for information.

 

            File be consigned to record room.

 

 (O.P. Gupta)
Member (Judicial)