BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 581/2008 against C.C 1060/2007, Dist. Forum-III, Hyderabad.
Between:
M/s. Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd.
F-416, IV Floor, Minerva Complex
S.D. Road, Secunderabad
Rep. by its Manager (Legal) *** Appellant/
Op
And
M. Janga Reddy, S/o. Raji Reddy
Flat No. 303, S.V. Homes
Sirigiri Nilayam, Karmanghat
Hyderabad. *** Respondent/
Complainant.
Counsel for the Appellants: M/s. B.S. Prasad.
Counsel for the Resps: M/s. M. Ramakrishna Reddy
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
THUESDAY, THIS THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) This is an appeal preferred by opposite party against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation besides Rs. 2,000/- towards costs.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a Hero Honda bike under finance from the appellant bank. He had to pay Rs. 1,050/- per month towards repayment of loan commencing from 7.4.2004 to 13.3.2007 covering 36 instalments. He paid in all Rs. 41,400/- as against Rs. 37,800/- . The appellant bank has no right to withhold the Registration Certificate (R.C) and other documents, when he had cleared the amount. However it was making a demand of Rs. 1,850/-. The said notice was issued in order to extract more money. It caused mental agony and frustration in his mind and therefore he filed the complaint for a direction to the bank to hand over R.C. and other documents besides Rs. 25,000/- towards damages and Rs. 20,000/- towards costs.
3) The appellant bank resisted the case. While admitting that the complainant has availed loan from it to purchase a Hero Honda motor cycle, it alleged that the complainant did not pay the instalments by due dates. He has to pay delay payment charges on account of return of cheques issued by him and cheque dishonour charges mentioned in the statement of account. It is for the complainant to obtain delivery of R.C. and No Objection Certificate (NOC) after payment of entire dues. It was in fact ready and willing to deliver on payment of due amounts, and therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of his case, filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A3 marked, while the appellant filed Exs. B1 to B3.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the bank could not prove that the complainant had still to pay Rs. 1,360/- and therefore withholding of documents amounts to deficiency in service and directed the bank to pay Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation besides costs of Rs. 2,000/-., and also directed it to return all the documents relating to the vehicle within four weeks.
6) Aggrieved by the said order, the bank preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It did not consider the statement of account showing the over due amount payable by him which was not disputed. When copy of the account has clearly mentioned the amounts due by him and when the complainant did not question, without payment of dues, the Dist. Forum ought not to have directed to return the documents nor award compensation and costs.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is not in dispute that the complainant had borrowed loan from the appellant bank for purchase of a Hero Honda motor cycle. Equally he paid in all Rs. 41,400/- as against Rs. 37,800/- . Ex. B2 is the account copy filed by the bank mentioning that the cheques issued for the months of 11/2006, 12/2006 and 2/2007 were bounced and therefore cheque bounce charges of Rs. 400/- each had to be paid besides over due charges. The complainant did not dispute nor deny the correctness of the account copy filed by the bank. When copy of the account was given, it is for the complainant to deny particulars of the transactions mentioned in the copy of the account. When he was admittedly due an amount of Rs. 1,850/- as disclosed from the statement of account the bank would not have been made liable to pay compensation.
9) It may be stated herein that the bank had returned the original documents to the learned counsel for the complainant along with duplicate key evident from the acknowledgement filed by the counsel for the complainant.
10) The only question that remains for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 15,000/- besides costs of Rs. 2,000/-. We reiterate that the cheques that were issued by the complainant were admittedly bounced and necessarily he had to bear the cheque bounce charges. The bank cannot be made liable to pay the amount. The bank has been maintaining the accounts in its regular course of business and if really the complainant was of the opinion that the bank was not maintaining the account correctly he had to point out, more so, when a copy was given to him. For the fault of the complainant, the bank should not be penalised. It is not his case that he could not ply the vehicle for want of those documents. He was running the vehicle. Obviously that could be the reason why he was not insisting for the originals. However, when the bank did not agree with his contention that he had cleared the loan, he filed the complaint. When the complainant himself was at fault the bank cannot be made to pay compensation. There was no deficiency in service on the part of bank.
11) In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum. Consequently the complaint is dismissed. Since the documents were handed over the said relief has become infructous. However, in the circumstances of the case no costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 14. 12. 2010.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
