IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 30th day of September, 2020.
Filed on 11-07-2017
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.190/2017
between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri.Arun Murali 1. The Manager
S/o Muraleedharan Pillai HDFC Bank Ltd, 1st Floor
Nandanam Illampallil Building, M.C.Road
Anjilipra, Thattarambalam P.O. Ramanchira, Thiruvalla
Mavelikkara, Alappuzha (Party in person)
(By Adv.C. Viswanathan chettiar)
2. The Manager
KDFC Bank Ltd.
Ceebros Building, 110, Nelson
Manickam Road, Aminjikarai
Chennai- 690029
(Party in person)
3. The Manager
HDFC Bank Ltd,
Manappalli Building
Puthiyakavu, Mavelikara
(Party in person)
ORDER
C.K. LEKHAMMA (MEMBER)
Brief facts of complainant’s case are as follows:-
The complainant had availed vehicle loan of Rs.75,081/- (seventy-five thousand and eighty-one only) from the opposite party on 07.06.2014 after executing loan agreement. As per the agreement the loan was to be repaid by 36 equal monthly installments Rs.2850/- (Rupees two thousand eight hundred and fifty only)to commence from the month of July 2014 and the 1st instalment was paid in cash on 07.06.2014 itself. The complainant had given 7 post dated cheques and ECS mandate to the opposite party towards remittance of the installments. According to the complainant he had promptly deposited cash in his account on or before 5th of every month in his account except for one occasion on 05.11.2015, when a holiday was declared to the banks and he could remit only on the next day ie 06.11.2016. The instalments amounts were regularly remitted in the account of the father of the complainant from where the cheque and ECS mandate were given till January 2017. The complainant is liable to pay a total amount of Rs.1,02,600/- (Rupees one lakh two thousand and six hundred only) and that amount was fully paid on 05.05.17 as the last installment. Now the respondents are demanding more amounts with an intention to bargain with the complainant for not releasing the hire purchase agreement. On 17.6.17 the opposite party have issued a demand letter asking to pay an amount of Rs.6783.02 as cheque bouncing charges and late payment penalty. Since the complainant has made all the payments in time the complainant is not supposed to pay any further amount.
The complainant filed this complaint for seeking following reliefs against the opposite party
(a) To direct the opposite party to release the hypothecation entry with regard to the complainant’s vehicle without any charge.
b. Compensation and costs.
2. Version of the opposite parties are as follows:-
The complainant is not a consumer as defining under section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The relationship between the complainant and the opposite party that of a debtor and creditor of a contract accepting the terms and conditions governing the same. Hence the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-jointer of necessary party in the complaint since the complainant has opted to pay his monthly EMI through ECS transfer from SB account maintained with Indian Overseas Bank, Kayamkulam. However, ECS got bounced due to insufficient funds, which had occurred either due to the fault on the part of complainant and his bank. According to the opposite parties complainant is liable to pay charges in the event of default to repayment of the loan amount as EMI. Opposite parties was submitting ECS request to the complainant’s bank on the agreed date and not before the due date as alleged by the complainant. The complainant failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account and failed to honor ECS submitted the bank and thus violated the terms and conditions of loan agreement. Hence an amount of Rs.6783/- was payable by the complainant as per the terms of the contract. It is clear from the statement of account that the complainant was highly irregular in payment of loan and charges were accrued in the loan account. The complainant is not entitled to get the hire purchase agreement released without paying charges accrued in the loan account. The opposite parties have not presented cheques before the date agreed in the loan agreement and not committed any deficiency of service as alleged in the complaint. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs from the opposite parties.
3. Both parties represented through counsel. The complainant was examined as PW1, Ext.A1 to A5 were marked. Opposite parties adduced only documentary evidence Ext.B1 to B4 were marked from their side.
4. In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get release the hypothecation entry in the RC book with regard to his vehicle without paying any further amount to the opposite party?
- Compensation and cost if any?
5. Point No.1 and 2
According to the opposite parties the complainant is not maintainable since the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Since the relationship between the complainant and opposite parties is that of a debtor and creditor based on a contract. As per the provision in Consumer Protection Act that all banking operations coming within the purview of services and the money lending is one of the important services rendered by the banking institutions and that too for consideration in the shape of interest. Therefore any deficiency in its services covered within the scope of the Act. Moreover the bank had disbursed the loan to the complainant after charging interest and is doing banking business. So when an interest is charged for a loan transaction it cannot be said that the bank is doing a free service. The same was reiterated in 2000 KHC 1179 in which it is specifically discussed the Hon’ble High Court about the said point “banking is a commercial function ‘banking means acceptance, for the purpose of lending or invest or deposit of money from the public, repayable on demand or otherwise of the Banking Regulation Act,1949. The intention of the 1986 act is to protect consumers of such services rendered by the bank. Banks provide for render service/ facility to its customers or even non customers. They render facilities/services such as remittances, accepting deposits, providing for lockers, facility for discounting of cheques, collection of cheques, issue of bank, drafts, etc”. Therefore we have no hesitation to hold that the complaint is maintainable.
6. According to the complainant he had deposited cash in his account on or before 5th of every month in his account except for one occasion on 5.11.15, when a holiday was declared to the banks and he could remit only on the next day ie 6.11.15. The installment amounts were regularly paid to the account of the father of the complainant, from where cheques and ECS mandate were given till January 2017. By May 2017 the 36 installments (the last installment) was also paid as per the loan agreement but the opposite party insisting additional amounts for cancelling the hypothecation.
Ext.A1 is the statement from Indian Overseas Bank in which the repayment of loan amount is mentioned. As per Ext.A2 notice dated 10.1.17 the opposite party bank has withdrawn the credit facility. As per Ext.A5 the complainant paid one EMI to the opposite party bank. Ext.A3 is the repayment schedule issued by opposite party bank. Ext.A4 is the demand letter from opposite party with regard to the outstanding charges as Rs.6873/-(Six thousand eight hundred and seventy-three only) from the complainant.
According to the opposite party the complainant did not promptly pay the EMI within the stipulated time in the agreement. On perusal of Ext.A3 and Ext.B4 statements it reveals that the contention of the opposite parties are not correct. Even though sufficient amount is maintained in the account of the complainant ie, on 5.2.15, 5.11.15,5.4.16,5.5.16,5.7.16,5.9.16 and 5.1.18 opposite parties has taken cheque bouncing charges. This acts of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant. Moreover the complainant is not being defaulter therefore he is entitled to cancel the hypothecation entry in the RC book. We have already ordered adequate reliefs to compensate the agony of the complainant. Hence we are not ordering any litigation cost to the complainant.
In the result we partly allow the complaint and direct that:-
- The opposite parties to cancel the hypothecation entry in the RC book with regard to the complainants 2 wheeler.
2. The opposite parties shall pay compensation of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant.
The said order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of September,2020.
Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member) :
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Arun Murali (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Statement from Indian Overseas Bank
Ext.A2 - Notice dated 10.01.2017
Ext.A3 - Repayment schedule issued by opposite party
Ext.A4 - Demand letter from opposite party
Ext.A5 - Repayment receipt
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Loan agreement dated 07.06.2014
Ext.B2 - Loan Application dated 17.05.2014
Ext.B3 - True copy of Electronic Clearing Service duly verified and
issued by Muraleedharan Pillai
Ext.B4 - Statement of account no.28280060 and foreclosure letter
along with certification
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
