Date of Filing:18.12.2007<br /> Date of Order: 19.03.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> Dated: 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2523 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> M. Kannan,<br /> No.3, SSS Building,<br /> I Main Road, Chamarajpet,<br /> Bangalore-560 018. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> M/s Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd.,<br /> No.216/13, Suraj Towers,<br /> 27th Cross, III Block, <br /> Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 011. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the Member Sri. Balakrishna.V. Masali<br /> <br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant had taken a loan of Rs. 66,000/- to be repaid in 48 monthly installments starting from 05/10/2006 to 05/09/2010. During February-2007 the EMI of Rs. 2,475/- was deducted twice i.e., on 5th and 15th Februaary-2007 totally a sum of Rs. 4,950/- was deducted. In spite of repeated requests and visits the opposite party failed to set right the anomaly and give credit to the excess amount deducted and failed to respond the request. Hence, the complainant requested to direct the opposite party to re-credit the amount which was excess in deducting the loan amount with costs and compensation.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance through advocate and filed defense version. It is denied that, the installment for the month of February-2007 was deducted twice by them. However, the account of the complainant could not be debited on 5/2/2007, as instructed by the complainant as the sufficient funds were not available in the said account, on the said date. Accordingly, the EMI for the month of February-2007 could not be deducted on 5/2/2007. It is therefore, vehemently denied that an extra installment was deducted during the month of February-2007 as alleged by the complainant. It is denied that the complainant ever made any request to the opposite party concerning the alleged deduction as alleged in complainant and he is not entitled to any refund or compensation. Hence, the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of complainant filed. Arguments are heard. <br /> <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:-<br /> 1. Whether there was any deficiency in service on <br /> the part of the opposite party? <br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. It is true that, the complainant had taken loan of Rs.66,000/- from the opposite party and EMI was 2,475/- to be paid in 48 monthly installments starting from 05/10/2006 to 05/09/2010. The first monthly ECS for Rs. 2,475/- was on 5th October-2006. But in February-2007 the ECS debit from the complainant’s account was made twice on 5/2/2007 and on 15/2/2007 for Rs. 2,475/-. It shows in the complainant’s account that in Canara Bank’s account and in this regard the Canara Bank Manager has given an acknowledgement. Therefore, this amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, in the absence of any proof it can safely be held that the opposite party had debited the amount twice in the month of February-2007 towards loan amount of the complainant. This practice on the part of the opposite party is not fair. This amounts to a clear-cut deficiency of service. The opposite party being a reputed Bank shall not unnecessarily harass or give trouble to its customers. The opposite party should see that in future it should be very careful in unnecessarily giving nuisance to its customers. The complainant has sought Rs. 80,000/- as compensation for mental agony. On the facts and circumstances of the case, this is not a fit case to grant such kind of compensation. However, a warning will be sufficient to serve the purpose. The opposite party shall be directed to re-credit Rs.2,475/- to the account of the complainant. Since the complainant was forced to approach the Forum for getting the relief is entitled for the cost of Rs.2,000/- towards the present proceeding from the opposite party. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to re-credit Rs.2,475/- to the account of the complainant and the opposite party further directed to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. The opposite party is directed to send the costs of Rs.2,000/- directly to the complainant address by way of D.D or cheque with intimation to this Forum. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2008.<br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> MEMBER <br /> <br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />