BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 13/09/2010
Date of Order : 29/07/2011
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 490/2010
Between
Binu Francis, | :: | Complainant |
Alapattu House, Varapetty. P.O., Puthanakavumpady, Kothamangalam. |
| (By party-in-person) |
And
1. Managing Director, | :: | Opposite parties |
M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., 2nd Floor, Sadhana House, BH Mahindra Towers, 570, P.B. Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400 -018. |
| (Op.pts. 1 & 2 by Adv. Pradeesh Chacko, H. No. 41/3416, St. Albert's College Lane, Banerji Road, Ernakulam, Kochi - 18) |
2. Branch Manager, M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., 1st Floor, Yas Complex, Near Nehru Park, Market. P.O., Muvattupuzha – 686 673. |
|
|
O R D E R
Paul Gomez, Member.
1. The short facts leading to the complaint are :
The complainant availed a vehicle loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the opposite parties. The loan transaction was closed on 24-10-2007. Still he received a notice asking him to appear before the arbitrator. This complaint is filed seeking the opposite parties to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by him due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
2. The opposite parties filed version. The closure of the account was duly informed through e-mail to the lawyer and arbitrator. It was due to their negligence, the notice happened to be sent to the complainant pertaining to the arbitration proceedings. The second opposite party accuses the arbitrator for such an eventuality. Hence it is requested that the complaint should be dismissed with costs.
3. The parties were directed to appear before the adalath. When settlement failed, formal proceedings commenced. But both the parties were reluctant to give oral evidence. The complainant filed four documents which were marked as Exts. A1 to A4. The parties were heard.
4. The short points at dispute are :
i) Whether the opposite parties are answerable
for the alleged deficiency in service?
ii) What are the reliefs, if any?
5. Point Nos. i) and ii) :- The facts of the complaint unfold a strange case where the borrower was visited with disturbing consequences due to the alleged negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The materials produced by the complainant are eloquent as to the closure of the loan transaction. Ext. A1 cash receipt shows that the opposite party was in receipt of Rs. 40,000/- from the complainant on 24-10-2007. The same has been reinforced by Ext. A2 letter stating that Rs. 40,000/- was received from Mr. Binu Francis as final settlement. The complainant has also produced Ext. A3 statement of account. Notwithstanding the settlement of accounts between the parties, the complainant has presumably surprised to receive Ext. A4 notice dated 19-12-2009 summoning him for hearing on arbitration proceedings over the closed matter. In the version filed by the opposite party, they have disowned any liability in this regard stating that they had informed about the closure of loan account of the complaint to the lawyer and arbitrator. Consequently, the opposite party is pointing the accusing finger on the arbitrator. But we can take the above statement only with a pinch of salt. The statement in isolation cannot be relied on in the absence of supporting materials. Had the opposite party produced the copy of the intimation forwarded by them to the lawyer and the arbitrator, we would have lend credence to such statement. Moreover, arbitrator is not in the party array. In that view of the matter, we feel confirmed in our finding that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service in as much as it has caused arbitration notice sent by the arbitrator. The mental shock, agony and anguish in such a situation is quite perceptible . Naturally, the opposite parties should pay for the agonizing condition generated by them. We think Rs. 5,000/- would be a sufficient recompense for the mental agony and shock undergone by the complainant. Also he is entitled for the cost of the proceedings.
6. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed as follows :
The opposite parties shall pay to the complainant Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony suffered by him later.
The opposite parties shall pay Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as costs of litigation.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the above sums would carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of failure.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of July 2011.
