CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.155/2019

DATED ON THIS THE  25^th July 2019

Present:        1) Sri. C.V Maragoor

B.COM., L.L.M., - PRESIDENT  

                            2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.         

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Complainant/s                                   :       Chidananda,Ganeshgudi,                         

         aged about 64 years,

          # 835, 2^nd Stage, 13^th Cross,

           Main Road, Rajeev Nagar

           Mysuru-19.

           (Inperson)

                                                                    V/S

Opposite party/s                              :         Manager,

                                                                  HDB Financial Services

                                                                   Kuvempunagar Branch,

                                                                  Mysuru-23.

                                                                     (Exparte)

Sri. M.C. Devakumar,

Member

The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service and seeking refund of Rs. 2,519/- collected in excess  towards cheque bounce charges late fee and compensation of Rs. 50,000/-towards mental agony and hardship and Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation expenses with such other reliefs.

2. The complainant has borrowed loan of Rs. 18,662/- from the opposite party to purchase a Sony LED T.V on 23.06.2017 at 0% interest basis bearing loan amount no 2773176. It is agreed to repay in 14 EMIs at each Rs. 1,333/- through ECS from his SB account bearing no.54037577632 with the Sate Bank of India between  04.08.2017 to 04.09.2018. It is alleged that the opposite party has intentionally not recovered the amount for 2^nd , 5^th, 11^th , 12^th , and 14^th, EMIs though there was sufficient amount in his said account and levied  penalty a total sum of Rs. 2,519/- towards late payment and cheque bounce charges. As such, alleged deficiency in service hence, the complaint.

3. In spite of service of notice the opposite party remained absent hence, placed exparte.

4. The complainant filed his affidavit evidence supported with Exhibits marked as P1 to P4. Heard the arguments of the complainant and posted the matter for orders.

5. The following points arose for our consideration:

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service  by the opposite party and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?

2. What order?

6. Our findings on the aforesaid point are as follows:

                   Point no.1: Partly in the negative

                   Point no.2: As per final order for the following

Reasons

          7. Point No.1:- The complainant has agreed to re pay the loan amount in 14 EMIs  from his SB account through ECS. It was alleged that though there was sufficient amount in his account, the opposite party had recovered the only 9 EMIs against the 14 EMIs and illegally demanded for payment of penalty of Rs. 2,519/-. As such he suffered mental agony and hardship hence, the complaint.

          8. Considering the documents dated 05.03.2019 issued by the opposite party relating to the loan account bearing no 2773176 for the period between 01.01.2018 to 05.03.2019. The opposite party has imposed interest and late payment fee total amounting to Rs 2,519/-.

          9. The said document also discloses that only two post dated cheques were cleared and remaining 12 post dated cheques were bounced for the reason ECS mandate not processed as on the due date. There by at the end of each month, the opposite party has imposed interest for late payment. Further, in view of the averments by the complainant that he is ready and willing to pay the remaining 05 EMIs amount as on the date of filing this complaint. It appears that the complainant has not paid the EMIs regularly. In view of the same it is not correct to say that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service to the complainant. The pass book entries of SBI reveals that there was sufficient amount in the account to process the ECS mandate as on the due date. Thereby the complainat’s banker is responsible for not processing the ECS mandate. Since the complainant has not impleaded his banker as parties, necessary as such the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party and hence liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Accordingly point no.1 is answered in the negative.

10. Point no.2:- In view of the above observations the complaint deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. The complainant is dismissed as not maintainable

       2. Furnish the copy of this order to the parties, as per Rules.