Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/683/2015

Bimla Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Davinder Lubana

09 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/683/2015
Date of Institution	:	08/10/2015
Date of Decision	:	09/04/2018

 

Bimla Devi wife of Sh. Nafe Singh, resident of House No. 4577, Sector 46-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

 

(1)     M/s Fullerton India Credit Co. Limited, through its Manager and Authorized Signatory, SCO No. 141-142, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

(2)     M/s Fullerton India Credit Co. Limited, through its Manager and Authorized Signatory, Regd. Office at Megh Towers, 3^rd Floor, Old No. 307, New No. 165, Poonamalee High Road, Madhuravoyal, Chennai 600095, Tamil Nadu.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	SH. RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SMT.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Davinder Lubana, Counsel for Complainant.
		Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OPs (OP No.2 already ex-parte)

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the Complainant had taken a loan of Rs.75,000/- from the Opposite Parties vide Agreement dated 11.06.2007. The Complainant repaid the said loan in 48 installments; the final installment being deposited on 14.06.2011. Notwithstanding this, the Opposite Parties neither issued the NOC nor returned the documents to the Complainant. It has been alleged that after more than 04 years, the Opposite Parties informed the Complainant that one of the Cheque for Rs.17624/- was bounced and threatened her either to deposit the said amount or to face the criminal proceedings. The Complainant even got served a legal notice upon the OPs, but to no avail. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 04.12.2015.
3.         The Opposite Party No.1 in its written statement has admitted that the Complainant availed the loan facility vide loan agreement dated 11.06.2007. On account of bouncing of standing instructions, an amount of Rs.17,624/- was payable by the Complainant. However, on being informed to clear the said amount, the Complainant chose to file the instant Consumer Complaint. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, the Opposite Party has sought dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The complainant has filed rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.1.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by the Complainant as well as Opposite Party No.1, and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the contesting parties.
7.         A bare perusal of the allegations in the complaint reveals that the allegations of the complainant are relating to wrongly charging bouncing charges by the Opposite Parties, despite her having repaid all the loan amount in 48 installments. The dispute raised in the present complaint by the complainant is based on the basis of rendition of accounts. The transactions pointed out by the complainant relate to a number of years requiring proof through voluminous oral as well as documentary evidence.  Since the case relates to charging of bouncing charges, as also the late payment charges thereof etc., the appropriate Forum for deciding the same is the Civil Court.  In this context, attention can be had to Sh. Gian Chand Garg & Ors. Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd., First Appeal No.178 of 2013 decided on 6.9.2013 by the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh which is based on Vishal Roadways Vs. Economic Traders (Gujarat) Ltd., III (1998) CPJ 9 (NC) and Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Ors., I (1996) CPJ 228 (NC). We feel that since complex and complicated questions of facts and law are involved in this complaint, it cannot be decided through summary adjudication.
8.         In such a situation, it is the Civil Court which is competent to decide the controversy inter se parties. The Complainant has chosen a wrong Forum for the redressal of his grievance. Accordingly, the present Complaint is not maintainable and the same is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
9.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
09/04/2018	[SURESH KUMAR SARDANA]	[SURJEET KAUR]	[RATTAN SINGH THAKUR]
	MEMBER	MEMBER	PRESIDENT
“Dutt”