CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.456/2008
SH. RAMESH BANGA
S/O SH. R.D. BANGA
1435/13C, IInd FLOOR,
GOVIND PURI, KALKAJI,
NEW DELHI-110019
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
- M/S CITY FINANCIAL CONSUMER FINANCE INDIA LTD.,
THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
3 LSC, PUSHP VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110069
- SH SURINDER KUAMR
M/S CITY FINANCIAL CONSUMER FINANCE INDIA LTD.,
3 LSC, PUSHP VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110069
- COLLECTION HEAD
M/S CITY FINANCIAL CONSUMER FINANCE INDIA LTD.,
3 LSC, PUSHP VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110069
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order: 15.03.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
Shorn of unnecessary details, complainant took a loan of Rs.50,000/- from OP-1 vide loan account NO.6423873 in the year 2005. The said loan amount was to be repaid in 25 monthly instalment of Rs.3,229/-. Complainant approached OP to settle his loan account and the same was settled vide letter dated 13.08.2007. The complainant was to pay Rs.13,000/- before the due date. Complainant paid a sum of Rs.13,000/- to OP before 30.08.2007 within time period which was fixed by OP itself. The monthly instalment for repayment of loan was paid through ECS. Since the loan was duly paid by way of instalment, OP-1 was under legal and contractual duty not to present mandate of ECS for encashment.
It is further stated that complainant has also taken a loan from GE Money Financial Services Ltd. for which he had been paying regularly equal monthly instalments. However, in the month of April, GE officers contacted complainant alleging dishonour of equal monthly instalment cheque. Complainant made enquiry from its banker which revealed that in the month March 2008, OP-1 under the control of OP-2 and OP-3 presented the ECS for three consecutive times and withdrew a sum of Rs.9,687/- from the above referred account of complainant. The ECS was issued in favour of OP-1 only as an agent and with a clear direction that it shall be presented for encashment and satisfaction of the loan though there is no liability to pay to OPs. Complainant had approached Standard Chartered Bank for grant of overdraft facility, however the same was not granted due to dishonour of cheque on 08.3.08 being reflected in the account of complainant. This act of OP withdrawing the money from complainant account illegally resulted into non-payment of EMI pertaining to GE Money Financial Services Ltd. The dishonour of EMI in favour of GE Money has lowered the reputation of complainant in the eyes of GE Money as well in the eyes of Standard Chartered Bank. It is prayed that OPs be directed to pay Rs.5 lakhs for deficiency in service, Rs.1 lakh for compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses.
OP in the reply denied that complainant in consonance to the settlement dated 13.7.2008 paid a sum of Rs.13,000/- to OP-3 before 30.08.2007. It is submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
The matter was settled between the parties vide letter dated 13.08.2007 and as per that letter complainant was to provide the entire sum of Rs.13,000/- “on or before due date” and in case the amount is not deposited within due date then this offer shall be deemed to have lapsed and complainant shall be liable to pay to the company such amount as may be determined by the company.
OP has placed on record the statement of accounts showing that a sum of Rs.5000/- was paid on 27.08.2007 vide receipt No.9059801322dated 27.8.07 and Rs.8000/- was paid on 31.8.07 vide receipt No.9059801342 dated 30.8.07. it is submitted by OP that it shows that the entire amount was not paid by 30.8.07 rather the same was paid on 31.8.07 hence as per letter dated 13.8.07 the settlement has come to an end.
We do not agree with the contention of OP. First of all from this statement of accounts what is evident is that an amount of Rs.5000/- was paid vide receipt No.9059801322 dated 27.8.07 and an amount of Rs.8000/- was paid vide receipt NOl.9059801342 dated 30.8.07 meaning thereby that the amount was paid on 30.8.07. It must be updated in their account on 30.08.07. Assuming for the sake of arguments that this amount was paid on 31.08.07, does it mean that complainant has not complied with the letter dated 13.08.07. In the entire letter dated 13.08.07, it is nowhere mentioned that the amount was to be paid by 30.08.07. OP has not placed any document on record to show that as per settlement this amount of Rs.13,000/- was to be paid by 30.8.07. The onus was on OP which he has failed to discharge. Assuming that this amount was paid on 31.8.07 does it mean that the agreement dated 13.8.07 has come to an end? Certainly not. The fact of the matter is that as per settlement OP has accepted this amount of Rs.13,000/-. Once the amount has been accepted pursuant to the settlement then for all practical purposes, the settlement has been acted upon. Moreover, in this case if OP has not agreed to the settlement then it should have encahsed ECS immediately thereafter. Why it waited for almost eight months to encash the three ECSs each for a sum of Rs.3,229/- on 05.3.08?
Complainant came to know about the same when his post dated cheque in respect of some loan taken form GE Money Financial Services Ltd. was dishonoured. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
OP-1 is directed to refund the amount withdrawn from the account of the complainant after 31.08.2007 alongwith 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing of complaint plus Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
