Delhi

New Delhi

CC/302/2007

R.P. Kapur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Citi Bank N.A. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jan 2019

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.302/2007                                Dated:

In the matter of:

               Sh. R.P. Kapur,

                R/o  B-1/1142, Vasant Kunj,

                 New Delhi-110070.

                 ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. M/s Citi Bank N.A.,

          124,, Jeevan Bharti Building,

            Connaught Place,

           New Delhi.

 

2. UCO Bank,

Through Branch Manager,

Patiala House Courts,

New Delhi.

Opposite Parties.

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

 

ORDER

 

This complaint is filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging the deficiency in services against OPs.  The complainant has availed the Personal loan vide loan Account No.LAUC093147747 from the OP-1 to be repaid in 48 monthly instalment of Rs.8349/- each and the mode of payment was ECS i.e. Electronic Clearance System.    It is alleged that he never knew about ECS and was only made to believe by OP-1 that he was only required to maintain balance in his account to the tune of Rs.8349/- on 5^th of every month.  It is submitted that against the loan amount of Rs.3 lacs, OP-1 has disbursed a sum of Rs.2,96,674/- and deducted the balance amount under the pretext of processing charges, which amounts to unfair trade practice on their part. 

2.     It is further submitted that on various occasion, OP-1 used to present the ECS before due date i.e. 5^th of every month and under this pretext levied cheque bounces charges as well as penalty amounted to unfair trade practice on the part of OP-1.  It is further stated by the complainant that he had paid a sum of Rs.1,58,631/- to OP-1 by way of 17 EMIs and he is liable to pay the balance of Rs.1,38,043/- against EMIs of Rs.8349/- each from May 2007. 

3.     It is alleged that on various occasions he had deposited the cash to the OP-1 for avoiding the cheque bounces charges and penalties, but the OP-1 under one with other pretext  levied the chargesto defame and humiliate him.  It is submitted that he sent legal notice to the OP-1 and requested  not to levy the interest, penalty, bouncing charges as he was having sufficient balance in his account for clearing the ECS but nothing has been done by the OP-1to resolve the issue till date, hence this complaint.

4.     Complaint has been contested by OP-1.   OP-1 denied any deficiency in service on its part.  It is further stated by OP-1 that the statement of account pertaining to loan in question reflects that most of EMIs presented through ECS got bounced on the first presentation and the same were cleared on 2^nd presentation.  As per clause 7 of the loan agreement OP-1 was entitled to levy the cheque bouncing charges in case of bouncing of the ECS.  It is further stated that Rs.3326/- has been deducted from the loan amount of Rs.3 lacs on account of processing fee and the same is non-refundable.  OP-1 as good  gesture on 29.6.2006, 27.2.2007 and 11.5.2007  waived the charges.  It is stated that only six EMIs are due on the complainant’s account till date.

5.  Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of Affidavit. 

6.     We have heard the arguments advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

7.   It is argued on behalf of complainant that on various occasion, OP-1 used to present the ECS before due date i.e. 5^th of every month and under the pretext of same levied cheque bouncing charges as well as penalty which  contributed to  the unfair trade practice on the part of OP-1.  It is argued on behalf of OP-1 that the statement of account pertaining to loan in question reflects that most of EMIs presented through ECS got bounced on the first presentation and the same was cleared on 2^nd presentation.  As per clause 7 of the loan agreement OP-1 was entitled to levy the cheque bouncing charges in case of bouncing of the ECS and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

8.     Both the parties have placed on record their respective bank statement.  Perusal of the statement of complainant’s bank account  shows that the loan credited in his account was  on 4.10.05 whereas the loan account statement show the disbursal on 29.9.05. The first EMI was charged by OP on 1.10.05 i.e. before credit of the loan amount in the bank account of the complainant, hence the charges levied against the cheque bouncing was illegally imposed by OP-1.  Similarly, the comparative study of both the statement of account reveal that the date of ECS was 1^st of every month and the perusal of the complainant account’s shows that there was  sufficient balance in his account for clearing the ECS despite that OP-1 used to impose the cheque bouncing charges and penalties.  In March, 2006, and July 2006 complainant was short of balance for clearing the ECS, but the cheque bouncing  charges and penalties imposed by OP-1 bank from October 2005 to June 2007 were illegal excluding the bouncing charges and penalties imposed for  the months of March 2006  and July 2006.

9.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view  that the comparative study of the statement of account placed on record by the parties shows that the cheque bounce charges and penalties imposed by OP-1 bank from October 2005 to June 2007 were illegal excluding the bouncing charges and penalties imposed in the months of March and July 2006, which amounted to unfair trade practice on the part of OP-1. OP-1 itself has admitted in its written statement at Para-10 that 6 EMIs are due on the complainant till date.   We therefore hold, OP-1 guilty of unfair trade practice and passed the following Award:

1. Waive the cheque bouncing charges and penalties imposed by OP-1 bank from October 2005 to June 2007 excluding bouncing charges and penalties imposed for the month of March and July 2006.

 

2. Complainant is directed to pay balance EMIs outstanding in his loan account as well as the bouncing charges and penalties imposed for the month of March and July 2006 in equal four monthly installment w.e.f. March 2019 on or before the 5^th day of every month.

 

3. OP-1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of compensation in addition to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

 

 

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.

Announced in open Forum on 23/01/2019. 

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

                             (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                        (HM VYAS)

                                   MEMBER                                                      MEMBER