Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

81/2008

M.J.Sankar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Axis BankLtd and another - Opp.Party(s)

S.Stanley John

31 Oct 2019

ORDER

                                                                  Complaint presented on : 29.02.2008

                                                                    Date of Disposal            : 31.10.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.81/2008

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2019

                                 

Mr. M.J. Sankar,

S/o. Mr. B. Mohan,

No.6/F3, Jasmine Apartments,

Prakasam Street,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                        .. Complainant.                               

 

                                                                                           ..Versus..

 

 

1. M/s. AXIS Bank Limited,

Retail Asset Centre,

Represented by its Manager,

No.83/1, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.

 

2. M/s. Balaji Agencies,

Represented by its Proprietor

Mr. Kannan,

Rukmani Street,

West Mambalam,

Chennai – 600 033.                                               ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant          : M/s. S. Stanley John & another

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party : M/s. R. Palani Kumar Ramesh &      

                                                          another

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party : Mr. D. Sathyaraj & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant on account of deficiency in service and cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

 

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he had availed a car loan from the 1^st opposite party for a sum of Rs.3,34,000/- during the month of June 2007 and the same has to  be repaid in 60 equal monthly instalments of Rs.7,464/- each.  The loan account number is 24501060123474 and customer ID number is 2450900485.  The loan amount has to be paid through ECS from his Bank with interest.   The complainant had always maintained sufficient balance in his Canara Bank at Teynampet and all the instalments had paid rightly in time.   The complainant submits that the 2^nd opposite party is a Collection Agent of the 1^st opposite party.   On 21^st January morning one Chandru, Collection Agent of the 1^st opposite party came to the complainant’s house and told that the complainant is defaulted for the month of January 2008.  He has also displaced a sheet of paper wherein, it is stated that the payment had been due for December and January.   But the agent compelled him to pay the due amount even though the complainant explained him after verifying with his bank for the month of January 2008.  Inspite of the complainant’s request, the shouted and stood in front of the complainant’s house and not allowed him to take his child to drop at school and the agent created an awkward situation in the surrounding.   All the neighbours watched the entire incident which has caused great imputation to his reputation and mental agony to the complainant.  

2.     The complainant submits that on 22.01.2008 one Mahesh, Team Manager had called the complainant and threatened the complainant to pay the due amount immediately failing which he would enter his name into CIBIL records, thereby disabling him from availing loans from anywhere, and also said that he would take away the complainant’s car Wagon R car for which, the loan was advanced.  The complainant submits that on verifying the bank statement of accounts, the EMI for the month of January 2008 has been cleaned on 05.01.2008 itself by way of ECS for Rs.7,464/-.  The complainant submits that he had sent e-mail complainant to the 1^st opposite party CCO on 22.01.2008 about the incident that had taken place.  The Senior Vice President Mr. Sujan Sinha had apologized about the incident.  Thereafter, the complainant issued legal notice dated:30.01.2008 to the opposite parties for deficiency in service committed by them and demanding compensation for the same.   The opposite parties received the notice on 04.02.2008 did not sent any reply.   The act of the opposite parties 1 & 2 amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.   Hence, the complaint is filed.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by 1^st opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 1^st opposite party states that the complainant has availed loan for a sum of Rs.3,34,000/- from the 1^st opposite party in the month of June 2007.   The loan has to be paid in equal monthly instalments.   The loan account number is 245010601233474.   The 1^st opposite party submits that he has granted loan to the complainant and agreed to repay the loan amount through ECS from his bank account held by the complainant with Canara Bank at Teynampet Branch, Chennai.   The 1^st opposite party submits that he is a collection Agent of the 1^st opposite party.   The 1^st opposite party submits that the instalment for the month of January 2008, ECS disclosed was not debited to the loan account of the complainant and so a request was raised with the collection agency.   The 1^st opposite party states that the error stood rectified within 10 days from the date of due, namely 05.01.2008 and all the issues came to an end.  Therefore, the 1^st opposite party cannot claim that the complainant is delay in payment that is the reason the 1^st opposite party has sent their collection agent to the complainant’s house.  The 1^st opposite party states that the said error / mistake was immediately rectified and instruction was clearly given to the 2^nd opposite party that not to approach the complainant for any dues for the month of January.   The 1^st opposite party states that if at all any such incident would have happened and they would take stern action against the 2^nd opposite party even to the extent of terminating their contract of agent.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and hence, the complaint against him is liable to be dismissed.

4.      The brief averments in the written version filed by 2^nd opposite party is as follows:

The 2^nd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 2^nd opposite party states that he is the authorized agent of the 1^st opposite party.   The 1^st opposite party carried out the works given by the 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party submits that unless they received the instructions or written communication from the 1^st opposite party they will not do any work and they cannot act on their own.   The 2^nd opposite party states that there is an agreement between the 1^st opposite party and the complainant herein in respect of the loan agreement sanctioned by the 1^st opposite party bank vide loan agreement No.245010601233474 for a sum of Rs.3,34,000/- availed for the purpose of buying a car.   The 2^nd opposite party states that there is an agreement between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party and not with the 2^nd opposite party.   The 2^nd opposite party states that the said Chandru had gone to the complainant’s house and introduced himself and showed his identity card and also gave his mobile number to the complainant and he explained to the complainant about his dues to the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party submits that he never spoke to the complainant in a rude manner and if he had spoken rudely the complainant would not have disclosed his name and mobile number to the complainant.  

5.     The 2^nd opposite party submits that the complainant abused the security for allowing him inside and plucked the paper from Chandru’s had and threatened him to come inside his house and took photograph of Chandru and took details of the Team Leader i.e. Mahesh and started abusing the said Chandru in a filthy language.   The 2^nd opposite party states that Mr. Mahesh who is working under the 2^nd opposite party had received the phone call from the complainant’s office staff and also a person named Mr. Pandian who claimed to be the complainant’s brother instructed him to call the complainant on his mobile phone only and collect payment.   As per said the instruction Mr. Mahesh called Mr. Sankar and did not threatened the complainant as alleged by the complainant.  With regard to the allegations that the complainant on verifying with the bank and found out that the ECS cheque for Rs.7,464/- had been cleared on 05.01.2008 itself, the 2^nd opposite party submits that as stated earlier they act only under instruction of the 1^st opposite party and in the present case also they approached the complainant under the instruction of the 1^st opposite party.   Further the complainant’s cheque had been cleared on 05.01.2008 but bank has erroneously sent the data to the 2^nd opposite party as if the complainant is a defaulter.   The 2^nd opposite party sent a letter dated:06.02.2008 based on the explanation the 1^st opposite party herein has sent a reply to the complainant’s Counsel vide letter dated:20.02.2008, issued by one Mr. Gopalakrishnan, Sr. Vice President & Head (Law), of the 1^st opposite party company.    Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and hence, the complaint against him is liable to be dismissed.

6.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party is filed and no document is  marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party.   In spite of sufficient time is given, the 2^nd opposite party has not filed any proof affidavit to prove the contentions raised in the written version and hence, evidence of the 2^nd opposite party is closed.

7.      The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- as prayed for?

 

8.      On point:-

The complainant and 1^st opposite party filed their respective written arguments.   The 2^nd opposite party has not filed any proof affidavit to prove the contentions raised in the written version and hence, evidence of the 2^nd opposite party is closed.  Heard the 1^st opposite party’s Counsel also.   Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party and documents filed on the side of the complainant.  Admittedly, the complainant had availed a car loan from the 1^st opposite party for a sum of Rs.3,34,000/- during the month of June 2007 and the same has to  be repaid in 60 equal monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.7,464/- each.  The loan account number is 24501060123474 and customer ID number is 2450900485.   But no document filed by the complainant.   The loan amount has to be paid through ECS from his Bank with interest.   The complainant had always maintained sufficient balance in his Canara Bank at Teynampet and all the instalments had paid rightly in time.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the 2^nd opposite party is a Collection Agent of the 1^st opposite party.   On 21^st January morning one Chandru, Collection Agent of the 1^st opposite party came to the complainant’s house and told that the complainant is defaulted for the month of January 2008.  He has shown a paper in which, it is mentioned as payment due for December and January as per Ex.A1.   But the agent is compelling him to pay the due amount even though the complainant explained him after verifying with his bank for the month of January 2008.  Inspite of  the complainant’s request, the agent was shouting and standing in front of the complainant’s house and not allowing him to take his child to drop at school and the agent created an awkward situation in the surrounding.   All the neighbours were watching the entire incident which has caused great imputation to his reputation and mental agony.   But the complainant has not produced any iota of evidence to prove the above allegations.  

9.     Further the contention of the complainant is that on 22.01.2008 one Mahesh, Team Manager had called the complainant and threatened the complainant to pay the due amount soon, failing which, he will inform to CIBIL records, thereby disabling him from availing loans from anywhere, otherwise he would take away the complainant’s car Wagon R car for which, the complainant was advanced.  But the complainant has not taken any steps to file a police complaint and no documents filed to prove the above allegations.   Further the contention of the complainant is that on verifying the bank statement of accounts, the EMI for the month of January 2008 has been cleaned on 05.01.2008 itself by way of ECS for Rs.7,464/- as per Ex.A2.   Further the contention of the complainant is that he had sent e-mail to the 1^st opposite party CCO on 22.01.2008 about the incident as per Ex.A3.   The Senior Vice President Mr. Sujan Sinha had apologized about the incident.  Thereafter the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties for deficiency in service committed by them and demanding compensation for the same.   The opposite parties received the notice on 04.02.2008 did not sent any reply nor had denied the contents of the said notice as per Ex.A5.

10.    The contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that admittedly, the complainant has availed loan for a sum of Rs.3,34,000/- from the 1^st opposite party in the month of June 2007.   The loan has to be paid in equal monthly instalments.   The loan account number is 245010601233474.   But the 1^st opposite party has also not filed the loan agreement as documentary on their side before this Forum.  The 1^st opposite party submits that he has granted loan to the complainant and agreed to repay the loan amount through ECS from his bank account held by the complainant with Canara Bank at Teynampet Branch, Chennai proves the privity of contract between the 1^st opposite party and the complainant.   The 1^st opposite party is also admitted in the written version, proof affidavit and written arguments that the 2^nd opposite party is a collection Agent of the 1^st opposite party.   Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the instalment for the month of January 2008, ECS disclosed was not debited to the loan account of the complainant and so a request was raised with the collection agency.   But the EMI for the month of January 2008 through ECS was cleared on 05.01.2008 itself proved through Ex.A2, the copy of bank statement of accounts.  In this case, both parties have not filed any documentary evidence to substantiate the time limit for payment of EMI every month.   Therefore, the 1^st opposite party cannot claim that the complainant is delay in payment that is the reason the 1^st opposite party has sent their collection agent to the complainant’s house.  On a careful perusal of the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party para No.7 admitted that it was found that by an inadvertent mistake could not be traced out the due cleaned through ECS from the complainant’s bank it is a human error  on the part of the 1^st opposite party’s Officers.  

11.    Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the said error / mistake was immediately rectified and instruction was clearly given to the 2^nd opposite party that not to approach the complainant for any dues for the month of January loan amount proves that the 1^st opposite party has committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.   Further the contention of the 1^st opposite party that if at all any such incident would have happened and they would take stern action against the 2^nd opposite party even to the extent of terminating their contract of agent proves that the 2^nd opposite party has created some unwanted incident against the complainant.  As per Ex.A3(S) email correspondences between the 1^st opposite party and the complainant filed before this Forum proves the act of the 2^nd opposite party the collection agent of the 1^st opposite party towards the complaint is unwarranted which amounts to deficiency in service.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally shall pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony and harassment with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant.

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of October 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1		Copy of letter issued by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A2	05.01.2008	Copy of pass book of the complainant
Ex.A3	23.01.2008	Copy of email correspondences
Ex.A4	30.01.2008	Copy of legal notice issued by the complainants
Ex.A5	04.02.2008	Copy of acknowledgement

 

1^ST OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

2^ND OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  ‘No Proof Affidavit’

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                           PRESIDENT