CC No.2066.2014

Filed on 09.12.2014

Disposed on 30.08.2016

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 30^th DAY OF AUGUST-2016

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.2066/2014                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

PRESENT:

     Sri.   H.S.RAMAKRISHNA

                               PRESIDENT

                        Smt. L.Mamatha, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                                 MEMBER

                                            V/S

ORDER

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1. This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 09.12.2014 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the losses along with interest 12% and other reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:

In the Complaint, the Complainant alleges that the Complainant has approached the Opposite Party for a loan amount of Rs.7,00,000/- for purchase of an Agricultural Equipment (JCB) for the completion of projects assigned to him by third parties.  As a consequence of it, the Opposite Party after satisfying itself with regard to the credit worthiness of the Complainant, and after verifying all the documents to sanction and released loan amount of Rs.7,00,000/-.  The loan amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was sanctioned under the CE Refinance facility from the Opposite Party Institution.  As per the terms of the loan agreement, the Complainant was supposed to pay a sum of Rs.33,500/-.  As per the terms of the loan agreement, he has been diligent and regular in repayment of the loan installments,   there is no default of any installment from the date of availing the loan till his last payment dt.20.06.2013.  On 12.10.2014 when he visited the Opposite Party requesting for necessary papers of loan discharge, he was shocked and surprised to know that an amount of Rs.4,400/- only was still shown to be repaid by the Complainant.  After perusal of the Statement issued by the Opposite Party dt.25.07.2011, it is clearly evident from the records that the loan amount has been repaid in full.    The Complainant brought this factum to the notice of the Opposite Party and sought for a logical explanation and reply from the Opposite Party as he had repaid the entire loan amount without any default.   To his utter shock and dismay, the concerned persons from the Opposite Party Institution vehemently denied the payment being made by the Complainant in respect of the loan availed by him in toto.  The Opposite Party has been misleading and has been giving false statement.  The Opposite Party being bound by the Reserve Bank of India guidelines, is duty bound to immediately issue a No-objection certificate and Form No.39 enabling the Complainant to complete all formalities before the concerned jurisdictional R.T.O.   But in spite of receiving the entire loan amount, the Opposite Party has failed to comply with the directive issued by the Reserve Bank of India and he has also failed to make other necessary compliances, which is against established banking practices.   In spite of request and demands made by the Complainant to consider his plea as the Statement of Account of payment being made speaks for itself, the Opposite Party has been negligent in not taking the factum into consideration and are making the Complainant to run from pillar to post. The Opposite Party has refused to issue the necessary Certificate addressed to the concerned R.T.O., which has resulted in Complainant suffering huge losses, as he is unable to deal and transact with the equipment or even sell the same to any third party purchasers and thereby has incurred substantial loss quantified at Rs.5,00,000/-.   The Opposite Party is wholly responsible for the gross act of breach of trust, deficiency of service and negligence.  The Complainant issued a Legal Notice on 26.09.2014 calling upon the Opposite Party to make necessary compliances and in spite of receipt of the notice, the Opposite Party has neither complied to the demand not replied.   Hence, this complaint.  

3. In response to the notice, the Opposite Party put his appearance through his counsel and filed his version.  In the version pleaded that the complaint filed by the Complainant is without any basis and is an abuse of process of law.  The Opposite Party has acted in accordance with law and therefore, no act of the Opposite Party can be termed as deficient or negligent.   Hence, the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The present Complaint is concocted story of the Complainant and create a false story in order to façade his negligence and carelessness and denied that the Complainant was diligent and regular in repayment of the loan installments and there being no instances of any default, from the date of availing the loan till his last payment dt.20.06.2013.  The instruments given towards the repayment of loan by the Complainant were dishonoured on three occasions i.e., on 21.09.2011, 22.10.2012 and 21.05.2013 for want of insufficient funds and due to delayed payment overdue interest and cheque bounce charges have been levied as per the terms stipulated in the loan agreement dt.04.07.2011.  As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the Complainant was required to pay Monthly installments of Rs.33,500/- for a period of 24 months,  commencing from 20.07.2011 and the last Monthly Installment was to be paid on 20.06.2013, after availing the loan, the Complainant failed in repaying few agreed Equated Monthly Installments regularly, by dishonoring few Monthly installments and the same were collected by regular follow-up by the Opposite Party-Bank, each and every time, when the Complainant failed to honour, the Complainant’s Loan account incurred interest on delayed payment, Cheque bounce charges and same is liable to be repaid by the Complainant along with his regular Monthly installments.   Hence prays to dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The Complainant, K.Gangadhara Raju has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and closed his side.  The affidavit of one L.M.Basanth Kumar, working as Authorized Signatory of Opposite Party has been filed.  Heard the arguments of both parties.  

5.      The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proves the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Party ?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?

6.     Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):- Negative

                POINT (2):- As per the final Order

REASONS

7.   POINT NOs.1 & 2:- On perusal of the complaint and also the version of the Opposite Party, it is undisputed fact that the Complainant availed a loan from the Opposite Party-Bank for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-.  It is also undisputed fact that the Complainant is agreed to repay the loan amount on Monthly installment of Rs.33,500/- commencing from 20.07.2011 to 20.06.2013 after availing the loan for the purpose of JCB for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-.  Further to substantiate this fact, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, reiterated the same and in support of the Complainant produced the Agreement dt.04.07.2011.  As looking into this document, it is clear that the Complainant availed loan from the Opposite Party-Bank for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- for purchase of JCB and agreed to repay the loan amount and Monthly installment of Rs.33,500/- the loan was disbursed on 04.07.2011 and Monthly installment commencing from 20.07.2011 and the last installment will be on 20.06.2013.  This evidence of the Complainant remains unchallenged.  So disbelieve the evidence of the Complainant, there is no contra evidence.  Therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that the Complainant availed a loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from the Opposite Party-Bank for purchase of JCB and agreed to repay the said amount and Monthly Installment of Rs.33,500/- commencing form 20.07.2011.

8. It is the case of the Complainant that the Complainant is regular in repaying of Monthly installment.  As per the terms of the agreement, he paid the entire amount till 20.06.2013.  On 12.10.2014 when the Complainant visited the Opposite Party requesting for necessary papers of loan discharge, the Complainant was shocked and surprised to know that an amount of Rs.4,400/- was still shown to be repaid by the Complainant.   On perusal of the Statement issued by the Opposite Party-Bank dt.25.07.2011, it is clearly evident from the records that the loan amount has been repaid in full.  But Opposite Party in their version denied this facts and in their version taken defence that the Complainant is irregular in repayment of the loan amount particularly the Complainant issued instruments towards repayment of the loan amount over dishonoured in three occasions i.e., on 21.09.2011, 22.10.2012 and 21.05.2013 for want of insufficient funds and due to delayed payment overdue interest and cheque bounce charges have been levied as per the terms stipulated in the loan agreement.  So now it is on the burden of the Complainant to establish his stands that the Complainant has repaid the entire loan amount as per the terms of the agreement.  To substantiate his contention that the Complainant in his sworn testimony, reiterated the same and produced the Bank Statement.  As looking into this document, it reveals that the Complainant having S.B.Account bearing No.136010002906.  The Complainant produced the Statement of Deposit Accounts of the S.B.Account. As looking into this document, the Complainant has made payment towards repayment of the borrowed loan amount.  But this S.B.Account Statement will not reflect that the Complainant is requesting and discharging the entire loan amount has made by him. 

9. On the other hand, the defence taken by the Opposite Party that the Complainant was irregular in repayment of the borrowed loan amount and the Complainant issued instruments towards the repayment of the loan amount dishonoured thrice on 21.09.2011, 22.10.2012 and 21.05.2013 for want of insufficient funds and due to delayed payment overdue interest and cheque bounce charges have been levied as per the terms stipulated in the loan agreement dt.04.07.2011.  In support of this defence, one L.M.Basanth Kumar of the Opposite Party filed his affidavit and reiterated the same and also in support of his evidence produced the Statement of Account.  As looking into this document, this statement of Account pertains to the loan amount of the Complainant, from this document, it reveal that the Complainant availed a loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from the Opposite Party-Bank bearing Loan Account No.CE-296736 on 04.07.2011 and agreed to pay the borrowed loan amount and the Monthly Installment of Rs.33,500/- from 20.07.2011 to 20.06.2013 and further as per Account Statement of the loan of the Complainant it is clear that on 21.09.2011 the cheque issued by the Complainant for a sum of Rs.33,500/- cheque dishonoured and Bank was charges cheque dishonoured for a sum of Rs.750/-, Collection charge Due Rs.304/- and overdue Interest Due Rs.264.33 and also further reveals that the cheque issued by the Complainant towards repayment of the loan amount in the month of October 2011 and cheque dishonoured charges for a sum of Rs.750/- so also the cheque issued in repayment of the loan amount in the month of May 2013 was dishonoured.  

10. The Complainant is still due to pay aforesaid dishonoured overdue interest and cheque dishonoured charges that has not been paid by the Complainant.  He has not produced any evidence to show that he has paid entire loan amount.  On the other hand, the evidence of the Opposite Party has not been challenged by the Complainant.  To disbelieve the evidence of the Opposite Party, therefore, it is proper to accept the defence taken by the Opposite Party that the Complainant has not cleared entire loan as agreed by him.  Since on three occasions the cheque issued by the Complainant were dishonoured and the Opposite Party had empowered to cheque dishonoured charges as well as overdue interest as per the terms of the agreement, thereby for that  reason, the Opposite Party had not issued the Clearance Certificate.  Even though, the Complainant has not cleared the entire loan amount and he demanded for Issuance of Clearance Certificate and this evidence falsifies the contention of the Complainant that for his shock and surprise and there is an outstanding amount of Rs.4,400/- but it is not so.  The Complainant failed to prove the fact that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party-Bank.  Hence, this point is held in the Negative. 

11. POINT NO.2:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both the party. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 30^th  day of August 2016)

      MEMBER                                                       PRESIDENT 

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

 Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Sri.K.Gangadhara Raju, who being Complainant has filed his affidavit.

 List of documents filed by the Complainant:

1. The Original Agreement details
2. The Bank Statement depicting payment being made
3. The original copy of Legal Notice dt.25.09.2014
4. The original Acknowledgement with postal receipt

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

1. Sri.L.M.Basanth Kumar, on behalf of the Opposite Party by way of affidavit.

            List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

1. Copy of Board Resolution
2. Copy of Loan Application Form
3. Copy of Loan Agreement
4. Copy of Statement of Account dt.03.03.2015

       MEMBER                                                    PRESIDENT