Delhi

South Delhi

CC/661/2010

SH KAMAL KUMAR GOLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S CITI FINANCIAL CONSUMER FINANCE INDIA LTD - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM -II UDYOG SADAN C C 22 23
QUTUB INSTITUTIONNAL AREA BEHIND QUTUB HOTEL NEW DELHI 110016
 
Complaint Case No. CC/661/2010
 
1. SH KAMAL KUMAR GOLA
2573 GF CHOK PRAJAPATI, SHANKAR GALI, SITARAM BAZAR, DELHI 110006
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/S CITI FINANCIAL CONSUMER FINANCE INDIA LTD
3L.S.C. PUSHP VIHAR NEW DELHI 110062
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  N K GOEL PRESIDENT
  NAINA BAKSHI MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
None for the Complainant.
 
For the Opp. Party:
Sh Rustam Singh Adv for the OP.
 
Dated : 31 Aug 2017
Final Order / Judgement

Sh. Kamal Kumar Gola             V/s          M/s Citi Financial Consumer

 Finance India Ltd.

 

Case No. 661/10

31.08.17

Present:       None for the complainant

                   Sh. Rustam Singh Adv. for the OP

 

 None has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 25.04.16. Arguments are heard on behalf of the OP.

We have gone through the file. We proceed to dispose off the complaint on merits.

It is an admitted case of the complainant that the complainant took a personal loan from the OP. According to the Complainant, the installments amount could not be paid in time for the reason started in the complaint and ultimately in response to a letter No.20090916 J 000255960 dated 06.01.10 received from the OP the complainant became ready to pay lumpsum  amount of Rs.1,20,000/- which he paid by two installments of Rs.60,000/- each on 15.01.10 and 03.02.10. However, according to him despite this the OP presented  cheque No.118078 dated 05.03.10 amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- in their bank account which was dishonoured resulting in  filing a complaint against the complainant in the court of Ld. M.M. in which he was summoned. This caused humiliation, harassment and loss of reputation to him. Pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OP to pay Rs.4,00,00/- towards compensation.

OP has contested the complaint and has stated that the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- was not deposited in the OP’s account and the same was ultimately shown as fraud loss in their  account book to give relief to the complainant.

 

 As recorded in the order sheet dated 01.03.12 passed by our predecessors the complainant has already been given No Dues Certificate as well as closure report by the OP.

In our considered opinion, filing of the complaint under section 138 of NI Act on behalf of the OP against the complainant does not amount to deficiency in service as defined in the Consumer Protection Act and the proper remedy available to the complainant was either to file a civil suit for damages or any other proceedings according to the provisions of law. Therefore, we hold that the  complaint is without any merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. Let a copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for OP and copy be also sent to the complainant through Speed Post. File be consigned to record room.  

                  

 

Announced on 31.08.17.

 
 
[ N K GOEL]
PRESIDENT
 
[ NAINA BAKSHI]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.