BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 460/2002

Dated : 15.03.2010

Complainant:

Dr. T. Indira, T.C 28/411, 'Kailas', Ambujavilasam Road, Near Masters College, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. Padmini. N)

Opposite parties:

1. M/s Citi Bank N.A, Global Consumer Bank, P.O. Box Bo. 2427, Annasalai Post, Chennai – 600 002.

    

2. M/s T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons, Neeramankara, Kaimanam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 040.

(By adv. S. Laila)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 27.02.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 15.02.2010, the Forum on 15.03.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

Facts of the case in brief are the following: The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for buying a new Paleo car. The 2^nd opposite party among other things informed the complainant that the vehicle would cost Rs. 4,09,051/- and delivery of the vehicle will be effected within 6 to 8 weeks of booking. Though the complainant wanted to purchase the vehicle the complainant had some financial constrains. Quite surprisingly one Mr. Saju Mathew the representative of the 1^st opposite party approached the complainant and explained in detail about car loans arranged by the 1^st opposite party and made the complainant believe that it is a very easy procedure. He then assured the complainant that all the formalities shall be taken care and that the complainant need not worry. The said representative got the proforma invoice and handed it over to the complainant. He explained that Rs. 3,50,000/- will be given by the 1^st opposite party as loan to the complainant and the same has to be repaid in 60 monthly instalments of Rs. 8,021/- each. The said representative then requested the complainant to pay Rs. 25,000/- as advance for booking the vehicle. All the formalities for processing the loan was also taken care of by the said representative tactfully. Along with this the complainant was asked to give 60 post dated cheques and was made to sign on lot of papers. The complainant also had to make a payment of Rs. 8,021/- as first instalment of loan interest and as such a total amount of Rs. 33,021/- was given. Later on the complainant just took out the proforma invoice and on going through it she was quite shocked to find that it was written Rs. 50,000/- has to be paid as advance. The 2^nd opposite party on enquiry informed that Rs. 50,000/- is the advance booking amount. On further clarification the 2^nd opposite party told the complainant that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- is remitted in the complainant's name and only if the balance of Rs. 25,000/- is paid, booking will be effected. The complainant on 10.11.2001 remitted Rs. 25,000/- and obtained the receipt. A delay of 4 days occurred in booking of the vehicle which made the complainant lost her priority. The said delay occurred only due to the inefficiency and carelessness of the 1^st opposite party which is nothing but a clear deficiency in their service. On 10.11.2001 the complainant was shocked to receive a letter from the 1^st opposite party informing her that her loan has been approved and a reference loan Account No. A4K-033-530278 was given. The 2^nd opposite party assured that once the complainant's priority is reached, they shall inform the 1^st opposite party and the complainant and then only payment be effected. During the 2^nd week of January, the complainant went to Indian Bank and was shocked to find that almost Rs. 24,063/- was withdrawn from her account by the 1^st opposite party. On 25.01.2002 the complainant sent a letter to the 1^st opposite party asking them to refund the amount withdrawn without her knowledge with interest and intimating them that she is not satisfied with the service rendered by the 1^st opposite party and hence she is not availing the loan. The whole transaction was based on faith and the complainant completely lost faith in the 1^st opposite party. Meanwhile the complainant's son made some enquiries and informed the complainant that the 1^st opposite party had remitted Rs. 3,45,000/- at the Ernakulam office of 2^nd opposite party on 27.12.2001. The complainant was highly shocked when she received a letter dated 12.02.2002 from the 1^st opposite parties intimating her to pay an additional amount of Rs. 3,57,545/- for closing the loan. The complainant then contacted the respective Banks and directed for stop payment of cheques already issued by her to the 1^st opposite party. The complainant had to pay an amount of Rs. 1,140/- as service charge in this regard. On 26.02.2002 the complainant took delivery of the vehicle after paying a total amount of Rs. 4,25,050/-. The 2^nd opposite party without the knowledge and consent of the complainant unnecessarily accepted and retained an amount of Rs. 3,45,000/- from the 1^st opposite party as early as on 27.12.2001. The booking was made by the complainant at the Trivandrum office of the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant is still confused as to why and under what agreement was the amount of Rs. 3,45,000/- remitted at the Ernakulam office without intimating the complainant. This act of the opposite parties is a clear unfair trade practice. The 1^st opposite party even before remitting the money with the 2^nd opposite party started encashing the cheques issued by the complainant which is a clear deficiency in their service. Here the 1^st opposite party never informed the complainant regarding the sanction of loan. The loan amount was remitted at the Ernakulam office of the 2^nd opposite party without intimating the complainant. The loan amount agreed was Rs. 3,50,000/- whereas the amount remitted was only Rs. 3,45,000/- without any explanation. All these show the negligent and callous attitude of the 1^st opposite party. Hence the complainant has no other remedy but to approach this Hon'ble Forum for redressal of her grievances.

1^st opposite party remains exparte.

2^nd opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: That this opposite party has been unnecessarily dragged to this litigation as there is no cause of action against this opposite party. Except for the remittance of Rs. 25,000/-, there is no allegation against this opposite party. 2^nd opposite party admits the averments in para 16 wherein it has been stated that the 1^st opposite party had remitted Rs. 3,45,000/- at the Ernakulam office of the 2^nd opposite party on 27.12.2001.

Complainant has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P12 were marked and Exts. D1 to D3 were marked on the part of the 2^nd opposite party. From the contentions raised, the following issues arise for consideration.

1. Whether the act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?

Points (i) & (ii):- The allegations of the complainant are that without informing the complainant whether the loan has been sanctioned or not and even without receiving the vehicle, an amount of Rs. 24,063/- has been withdrawn from her account by the 1^st opposite party. The copy of the pass book of Indian Bank has been marked as Ext. P6. Moreover the 1^st opposite party has not denied the acceptance of the said amount from the complainant. Ext. P1 reveals the receipt of Rs. 25,000/- by cash from the complainant by the 1^st opposite party on 06.11.2001 and as per Ext. P6 an amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been withdrawn from the complainant's account by TVS & Sons which is the 2^nd opposite party. On 10.11.2001, as per Ext. P5, the complainant has been informed by 1^st opposite party that car loan has been approved. But the complainant has pleaded that besides the said communication, no information has been provided to the complainant regarding the loan. The complainant has further pleaded that inspite of non-delivery of the car, the 1^st opposite party has withdrawn 3 instalments from her account. As per Ext. P7 dated 25.01.2002 the complainant has informed the 1^st opposite party that she is not availing the car loan and has requested for return of the cheques. Besides this on the same day i.e; on 25.01.2002, the complainant as per Ext. P8 has requested the 2^nd opposite party to refund to Citi Bank the cheque amount of Rs. 3,45,000/- submitted at Ernakulam. The 1^st opposite party as per Ext. P9 has sent details of amount payable to foreclose the loan on 08.02.2002. From Ext. P9, the total repayment amount is Rs. 3,57,545.34. The learned counsel for the 2^nd opposite party had argued that the complainant had remitted Rs. 8,021/- as first instalment and hence the allegation that she was unaware of the sanctioning of the loan is unbelievable. Here the most pertinent aspect to be noted is that, the 1^st opposite party has remitted the loan amount at the Ernakulam branch of 2^nd opposite party and the matter has not been informed to the complainant. Before the delivery of the car itself, instalments were being deducted from the complainant's account. No effort is seen taken by the 1^st opposite party bank to inform the complainant regarding the sanctioning of the loan and remittance of the said amount at Ernakulam branch. But as per Ext. D1, the Citi Bank has informed the 2^nd opposite party regarding the loan amount and has sent a D.D for Rs. 3,45,000/- along with Ext. D1 and accordingly as per Ext. D3 the 2^nd opposite party has refunded Rs. 3,45,000/-.

From the records produced by the complainant it is evident that the complainant was not informed regarding the details of the loan sanctioned and deduction of amount from the complainant's account. Moreover, the 1^st opposite party has not entered appearance nor contested the matter. The allegations levelled against the 1^st opposite party stands uncontroverted. From the facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party. Hence no negligence can be attributed on their part. Complainant has not furnished any document to show that she had to pay Rs. 15,000/- towards excess amount.

From the foregoing discussions, it is found that the 1^st opposite party shall refund Rs. 25,203/- with 9% interest from 15.12.2001 along with a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 3,000/-. If the order is not complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, Rs. 13,000/- shall also carry interest @ 9% from 15.03.2010 till realization.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15^th day of March 2010.

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

jb

O.P. No. 460/2002

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of receipt dated 06.11.2001

P2 - Photocopy of quotation/proforma invoice dated 06.11.2001

P3 - Photocopy of loan repayment details.

P4 - Photocopy of post dated cheque details given by complainant.

P5 - Photocopy of letter dated 10.11.2001 sent by 1^st opposite party

P6 - Photocopy of relevant page of the pass book of complainant's

SB A/c in Indian Bank.

P7 - Photocopy of letter sent by complainant to the 1^st opposite

party dated 25.01.2002.

P8 - Photocopy of letter sent by complainant to the 2^nd opposite

party dated 25.01.2002.

P9 - Photocopy of letter dated 12.02.2002 sent by 1^st opposite party

P10 - Photocopy of bill dated 26.02.2002.

P11 - Photocopy of advocate notice dated 15.04.2002.

P11(a)- Acknowledgement card addressed to 1^st opposite party.

P11(b)- Acknowledgement card addressed to 2^nd opposite party.

P12 - Letter sent by advocate of the 2^nd opposite party dated

26.04.2002.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Photocopy of letter dated 12.11.2001 addressed to 2^nd opposite party.

D2 - Photocopy of letter dated 14.03.2002 issued by 1^st opposite party.

D3 - Copy of letter dated 21.11.2002 issued by 2^nd opposite party.

PRESIDENT