Punjab

Rupnagar

RBT/CC/18/21

Mohan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oiriental Bank of LCommerce - Opp.Party(s)

Kamaljeet Adv.

28 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA 

 

                                                     RBT/Consumer Complaint No.21 of 2018

                                                          Date of institution:09.01.2018

                                                          Date of Decision: 28.04.2022

 

Mohan Singh aged about 57 years son of Sh. Mohinder Singh Saggu, resident of House No.B-XXI-1753/1, Street No.22, Janta Nagar, Ludhiana  

….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Having its Brahch office Ludhiana SPS Apollo Hospital, B-21, 1615/B, GT Road, Dholewal, Gandhi Nagar, Near Sherpur Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager/Authorized person
2.  Oriental Bank of Commerce, RAG CLUSTER, Ludhiana West, 3^rd Floor, Dhanraj Singh Complex, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through its Manager/authorized signatory

                                                                          ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act

 

Quorum:     Shri Ranjit Singh, President.

                             Mrs. Ranvir Kaur, Member

 

Present:         Sh.Kamaljit Kondal, Advocate, for complainant   

Sh. NS Rana, Advocate, for OPs    

                  


 

Order dictated by :-  Shri Ranjit Singh, President 

Order

 

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, received by way of transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant had purchased one car make Nissan Sunny bearing registration No.PB-10-DQ-3392 worth Rs.8,20,000/-. The complainant was got financed the said car from the Ops for Rs.5,00,000/- and the said amount was payable in equated monthly installments of Rs.10,809/- and the tenure of the installment was 60 months. From the very inception of the EMIs, the Ops have been deducting the amount more than EMI i.e. Rs.12,200/- on 30.04.2012, Rs.13,000/- on 12.6.2017 and rest EMIs were deducted by the Ops @ Rs.10,900/- per month and this continued till March 2017 and as such, the Ops illegally deducted an amount of Rs.9042/- in excess to the actual EMI from the loan account, the complainant was entitled to refund an amount of Rs.9042/- and the Ops were obliged to pay the amount of refund and to issue No Due Certificate and request to the effect that was duly made by the complainant to the Ops but the Ops always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other.  The aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and it has caused mental as well as physical agony and also caused inconvenience to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

1. To issue No Objection Certificate to the complainant regarding Loan account No.12516515000158 maintained by the complainant in the respondent No.1
2. To refund an amount of Rs.9042/- to the complainant’
3. To pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- as damages for mental, physical and financial harassment caused to the complainant.
4.  Any other additional or alternative relief to which the complainant may be found entitled under the circumstances of the present complaint may also be granted.

3. Upon notice, the learned counsel for the OPs appeared and filed written reply taking preliminary objection; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands; that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops; that the present complaint is false and is filed with ulterior motives by abusing the process of law; that the complaint has no merit; that the complaint is time barred. On merits, it is stated that complainant had applied for the grant of car loan of Rs.5,00,000/- for the purchase of new Nissan Sunny car from SPS Apollo Branch of the OP, which was sanctioned on 21.3.2012 in his favour and thereafter the complainant executed loan documents n favour of the bank and after the due execution of the security documents in favour of the bank, the loan of Rs.5,00,000/-  was disbursed in favour of the complainant on 24.3.2012 and the said loan was sanctioned on the rate of interest @ 12.75% per annum with monthly installments and was repayable in sixty monthly installments of Rs.11,312.65/- commencing from 30.4.2012 but due to inadvertent mistake the amount of installment was wrongly mentioned as Rs.10,809/- per month instead of correct amount of installment i.e. Rs.11,312.65/- per month and thereafter interest was being charged by the bank at the said rate of Rs.12.75% per annum with monthly rests. The loan was duly guaranteed by Smt. Ranjit Kaur wife of the complainant and thereafter the complainant kept paying the amount in his loan account, which has been shown in the statement of account already supplied to the complainant and lastly a sum of Rs.10,900/- was credited in the loan acoun5t on 20.3.2017 and after giving due credit to the amount deposited by the complainant in the loan account as on 31.3.2017, the complainant was liable to pay to the OP a sum of Rs.19,455/- with interest applied upto 31.3.2017.  The complainant is well  aware of the said facts and even the complainant has also acknowledged the balance due and payable by him by executing balance and security confirmation letter on 20.3.2015 vide which the complainant has acknowledged a sum fo Rs.2,45,490.75/- as due and payable by him to the bank with interest applied upto 28.2.2015 and moreover number of time the complainant has taken statement of account of his loan account from the bank as such, he was well aware the fact that a sum of Rs.19,896.75/- is also due and payable by the complainant as on 31.5.2017 and even he was told by the bank that after giving due credit to the amount of Rs.10900/- on 20.3.2017. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on its part has prayed for the dismissal of complaint in total.
4. In support of this claim, the complainant has tendered certain documents in the shape of evidence. On the other hand, the OPs has also tendered certain documents in the shape of evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued the complainant got financed the car from the Ops  for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and the said amount was payable by the complainant in 60 equal installments of Rs.10809/- each but after recovering the full and final amount from the complainant, the Ops has not issued No Objection Certificate to the complainant and illegally deducted an amount of Rs.9042/- in excess to the actual EMI from the loan account of the complainant. Lastly prayed to allow the complaint.
7. The learned counsel for the Ops has also argued that due to inadvertent mistake by the Ops, the amount of installment was wrongly mentioned as Rs.10809/- per month instead of correct amount of installment i.e. Rs.11312/ - per month and thereafter interest was being charged by the bank at the rate of 12.75% per annum with monthly rests. Lastly prayed that despite knowing the factual position with regard to the mentioning of the less amount of installment in the sanction letter, the complainant is still making false claim with the bank and moreover as per the order of Banking Ombudsman, the complainant was told to pay the principal amount without any additional/ penal interest but the complainant did not agree to it for the reasons best know to the complainant.  Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
8. It is admitted fact that from the very beginning, when the loan was sanctioned by the OPs in favour of the complainant, the OPs made monthly installment 10809 /- each in 60 equal installments. This thing is proved from the document Ex.C1, i.e. sanctioned letter, in this document, clearly mentioned by the OPs that amount of installment is of Rs.10809/-  except Ex.C1, in support of his claim, the learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record Ex.C2, i.e. statement of account of the complainant from 24.3.2012 to 17.04.2017 vide which the OPs deducted the monthly installment of Rs.10809/- . In this document, it is clearly mentioned by the Ops installment of amount of Rs.10809/-, present rate of interest 11.50% per annum. Beside this, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered legal notice Ex.C6 issued against the OPs. The learned counsel for the Ops also placed on record the same document as Ex.R4.
9. In its reply, the OP admitted this fact that due to inadvertent mistake the amount of installment was wrongly mentioned as Rs.10809/- per month instead of correct amount of installment of i.e. Rs.11,312.65/- per month. We feel, that when it is fault of the OP then why should the complainant pay the penalty?. As per Ex.C2, when the OP have taken all the installments, why don't you wake up now?  No one else can be punished for someone else's mistake. OP punish the official, who made this mistake.
10. In the absence of any cogent, reliable or trustworthy evidence from the side of the OP, we feel that the OP is punishing the complainant for his official mistake which is totally wrong.  It is pertinent to mention here that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is benevolent legislation enacted to help the consumers, which are being regularly harassed by the unscrupulous traders. We feel that the very purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, will fail if such types of traders are not brought to book and asked to pay compensation.
11. In view of the discussion made above, the present complaint is allowed. Accordingly, it is ordered that the O.Ps issued the No Objection Certificate to the complainant and refund Rs.9042/-. Further, the O.Ps are burdened to pay an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The OP is further directed to comply with the above said order within a period of 30 days from the date of receiving of certified copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the record room.
12.  

April 28 2022

(Ranjit Singh)

•  

                                               

 

(Ranvir Kaur)

•