Date of Filing:16.09.2008<br /> Date of Order:30.01.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> <br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2033 OF 2008<br /> Shashikala Hegde<br /> W/o. Shreenath Hegde<br /> NO. 315, BOCHS Colony<br /> Sanjayanagar<br /> Bangalore 74 Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd.<br /> Retail Asset Division<br /> No. 548/D, 1st Floor, Maruthi Mansion<br /> CMH Road, Indiranagar<br /> Bangalore 38 Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. <br /> The facts of the case are that the complainant has availed car loan during 1998-99 from the respondent bank. She had issued cheques of Syndicate Bank towards EMI payable towards said loan. During the month of February 2003 complainant closed the account in Syndicate Bank, Sadashivanagar Branch. Loan account was also transferred from Malleswaram Branch to Airport Road Branch and then again to CMH Road Branch. Complainant wrote letter dated 08.02.2003 to opposite party intimating the closure of account in Syndicate Bank and requested the opposite party bank to return the un-presented cheques. The opposite party bank went on presenting the cheques of the closed bank account in spite of request. On 17.11.2004 complainant completed all installments. Complainant requested for issue of closure certificate. On 25.01.2005 complainant wrote letter to the opposite party bank. Opposite party bank sent a notice claiming late payment penalty charges of Rs. 2,039/- and cheque bouncing charges Rs. 8,150/-. Complainant has paid that amount by way of demand draft and requested to issue No Objection Certificate and discharge hire purchase agreement. In the month of July 2008, complainant received clearance certificate and No Objection Certificate. Complainant submits she has been unnecessarily harassed by not issuing the closure certificate. The opposite party bank has collected sum of Rs. 10,189/- excess amount. The opposite party is liable to repay the same to the complainant and damages occurred Rs. 1,00,000/-.<br /> 2. Notice issued to opposite party Bank. The opposite party bank appeared through advocate and filed defence version stating that complaint is misconceived and false. Cheques presented to the account of complainant came to be dishonoured. Complainant is liable to pay cheque bouncing charges, interest and late payment penalty in terms of agreement. It is false to state that complainant has intimated the opposite party not to present the cheques. Complainant has sent letter along with D.D. on 24.04.2008 and same came to be realized on 06.05.008 and the opposite party issued NOC in the month of June 2008. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, the opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Affidavits filed by both the parties. Arguments are heard. <br /> 4. The point for consideration is:<br /> “Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?”<br /> 5. It is the case of the complainant that she wrote a letter dated 08.02.2003 to the opposite party intimating the closure of her account in Syndicate Bank and she requested the opposite party not to deposit post dated cheques to Syndicate Bank, Sadashivanagar Branch. This fact has been empathetically denied by the opposite party in their version and also in affidavit at para 2. So under these circumstances it is for the complainant to prove that she had really written letter to O.P on 08.02.2003 and intimated the bank that she has closed account in Syndicate bank, Sadashivanagar Branch and requested the opposite party not to present cheques to the complainant bank. But unfortunately, the complainant has not produced any record or proof to show that she had really written a letter to the opposite party bank on 08.02.2003. The complainant has not produced any copy of letter or any other proof or evidence to establish this fact. In the absence of proof that she intimated the opposite party bank about the closure of the account in the Syndicate Bank no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party can be attributed. As per the loan agreement and bank rules the opposite party has charged late payment penalty and also cheque bouncing charges and collected Rs. 10,189/-. Complainant by way of D.D. had made payment. The opposite party bank had issued NOC to the complainant. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party is established or proved. Complainant has not proved or established that opposite party bank is not entitled to recover cheque bouncing charges and late payment penalty. As per the case of the complainant she had already paid the amount by way of D.D. and obtained NOC. So under these circumstances there is nothing to be decided by this forum. If at all payment made by the complainant was excess payment it is for the complainant to recover her excess amount by filing civil suit by establishing the fact on production of oral and documentary evidence. This is a simple suit for recovery of amount. If the complainant so advised she will be at liberty to file suit against the opposite party bank for recovery of Rs. 10,189/-. Secondly RBI has formed Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006. Under section 8 of that scheme the customer can complain before the Banking Ombudsman for deficiency in banking services. After receiving the complaint the banking ombudsman shall make enquiry and investigation and pass award. Therefore, complainant herein is also entitled to give complaint with the Banking Ombudsman under the scheme introduced by RBI. Therefore, on this point also the complaint is not maintainable. Taking in view of the matter there is no merit in the complaint. It deserves to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The Complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br />