BEFORE THE DISTR7ICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 477 of 2015

Date of Institution: 3.8.2015

Date of Decision: 01.02.2016

Amit Kumar S/o Sh. Kewal Krishan resident of House No.E6/856, Gali Tejabian, Naraingarh, Chheharta,Amritsar, Punjab

Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab National Bank, through its branch manager having its branch office at Partap Bazar, Chheharta,Amritsar
2. HDFC Bank Ltd., through its Branch Manager/Authorized person at 39, The Mall, Novelty Chowk,Amritsar

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:    For the Complainant                  :  In person

               For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh. Sumesh Sharma, Advocate

                For the Opposite Party No.2: Sh. Anil Sharma,Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Amit Kumar under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he has saving bank account bearing No. 3396001300001143 with opposite party No.1 Punjab National Bank, Partap Bazar,Chheharta,Amritsar. According to the complainant he obtained two wheeler loan vide loan account No. 20721897 from opposite party No.2 , the EMI of the aforesaid two wheeler loan of Rs. 2497/- was being deducted from the aforesaid saving bank account of the complainant maintained with opposite party No.1 on 5^th day of every month through ESC. Complainant has alleged that in July 2012 , opposite party No.1 dishonoured EMI payment of Rs. 2497/- payable to opposite party No.2 for reasons “insufficient funds”. But the complainant has sufficient funds in his aforesaid saving bank account with opposite party No.1 at that time. Opposite party No.2 ,therefore, charged Rs. 481/- as EMI dishonoured charges in the aforesaid two wheeler loan account of the complainant.  Last EMI was deducted on 5.3.2014 and when  the complainant requested opposite party No.2 to issue no due certificate, opposite party No.2 informed to the  complainant through email dated  31.3.2014  that Rs. 481/- towards EMI dishonoured charges are still recoverable from the complainant in the aforesaid loan account. The complainant raised this matter with opposite party No.1  through some letter but no response was received from opposite party No.1. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party No.1 to immediately pay Rs. 481/- to opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 be directed to issue no due certificate to the complainant without any delay. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant is having saving bank account No. 3396001300001143 with replying opposite party. It was submitted that complainant has given ECS mandate to opposite party No.2 to debit his abovesaid saving account No.3396001300001143 with Rs. 2497/- per month. As per ECS mandate for the month of July, 2012, opposite party No.2 through ECS mandate raised requisition of Rs. 2497/- from opposite party No.1 through clearing house mentioning wrong/incomplete account number of the complainant ,as a result of which said amount of Rs. 2497/- was dishonoured and could not be debited to the aforesaid saving bank account of the complainant maintained with opposite party No.1. It was submitted that opposite party No.2  had raised requisition of Rs. 2497/- in July 2012 from opposite party No.1 mentioning account number as 339601300001143, whereas the correct account number of the complainant is 3396001300001143, as such there is no fault on the part of opposite party No.1 and  the fault lies with the complainant, who has mentioned his wrong/incomplete account number  on the basis of which opposite party No.2 raised requisition through ECS mode. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its written version has submitted that at the time of advancement of two wheeler loan, complainant entered into loan cum hypothecation agreement with opposite party No.2 and all the terms and  conditions of the loan cum hypothecation agreement  were duly explained to the complainant.  It was submitted that complainant himself gone through the same  and signed the same of his own freewill and consent. The complainant had agreed to pay cheque bouncing charges and late payment charges in the event of cheque bouncing of the EMI.  It was submitted that  an amount of Rs. 481/- stands due towards the complainant i.e. CBC + LPC  as the complainant failed to deposit/honour his monthly EMI for the month of July 2012 Rs. 2497/- .It was submitted that replying opposite party is ready to issue no due certificate if complainant deposits the entire loan outstanding amount due towards him. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, bank statement Ex.C-2, copy of e-mail Ex.C-3.
5. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh. Rajan Malhotra Ex.OP1/1, attested copies of account statement Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP1/3, attested copy of ECS statement Ex.OP1/4.
6. Opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh.Bhupinder Kumar Ex.OP2/1, statement of account Ex.OP2/2, copy of loan application form Ex.OP2/3, copy of loan cum hypothecation agreement Ex.OP2/4.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the complainant and ld.counsel for the opposite  parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the complainant and ld.counsel for the opposite parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant has saving bank account bearing No. 3396001300001143 with opposite party No.1 Punjab National Bank, Partap Bazar,Chheharta,Amritsar. The complainant obtained two wheeler loan vide loan account No. 20721897 from opposite party No.2 HDFC Bank Ltd., Novelty Chowk,Amritsar. The EMI of the aforesaid two wheeler loan of Rs. 2497/- was being deducted from the aforesaid saving bank account of the complainant with opposite party No.1 on 5^th day of every month through ESC. The complainant alleged that in July 2012 , opposite party No.1 dishonoured EMI payment of Rs. 2497/- payable to opposite party No.2 for reasons “insufficient funds”. But the complainant has sufficient funds in his aforesaid saving bank account with opposite party No.1 at that time. Opposite party No.2 ,therefore, charged Rs. 481/- as EMI dishonoured charges in the aforesaid two wheeler loan account of the complainant.  Last EMI was deducted on 5.3.2014 and when  the complainant requested opposite party No.2 to issue no due certificate, opposite party No.2 informed to the  complainant through email dated  31.3.2014 Ex.C-3 that Rs. 481/- towards EMI dishonoured charges are still recoverable from the complainant in the aforesaid loan account. The complainant raised this dispute with opposite party No.1  through some letter but no response was received from opposite party No.1. The complainant submitted that  there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 qua the complainant.
9. Whereas case of opposite party No.1 is that complainant has given ECS mandate to opposite party No.2 to debit his abovesaid saving account No.3396001300001143 with Rs. 2497/- per month. As per ECS mandate for the month of July, 2012, opposite party No.2 through ECS mandate raised requisition of Rs. 2497/- from opposite party No.1 through clearing house mentioning wrong/incomplete account number of the complainant as is evident from the ledger report Ex.OP1/4, as a result of which said amount of Rs. 2497/- was dishonoured and could not be debited to the aforesaid saving bank account of the complainant maintained with opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2  had raised requisition of Rs. 2497/- in July 2012 from opposite party No.1 mentioning account number as 339601300001143 whereas the correct account number of the complainant is 3396001300001143, as such there is no fault on the part of opposite part of opposite party No.1, rather the fault lies with the complainant who has mentioned his wrong/incomplete account number  on the basis of which opposite party No.2 raised requisition through ECS mode. Ld.counsel for opposite party No.1 submitted that this EMI payment through ECS was refused by opposite party No.1 bank in July 2012 and the complainant came to know this fact in July 2012 and he deposited the payment of this EMI on 24.7.2012 with opposite party No.2 bank , as is evident from the statement of account of HDFC Bank i.e. opposite party No.2 bank. So the cause of action accrued to the complainant to file this complaint in July 2012 or at the most on 24.7.2012. But the complainant filed the present complaint on 3.8.2015 i.e. after a lapse of a period of more than three years, whereas he could have filed the present complaint within a period of two years as per the provisions of the  Consumer Protection Act. So this complaint is barred by limitation.
10. Whereas case of opposite party No.2 is that at the time of advancement of two wheeler loan, complainant entered into loan cum hypothecation agreement with opposite party No.2 Ex.OP2/4 on the basis of loan application Ex.OP2/3. All the terms and  conditions of the loan cum hypothecation agreement  were duly explained to the complainant. Complainant signed the same of his own freewill and consent. The complainant had agreed to pay cheque bouncing charges and late payment charges in the event of cheque bouncing of the EMI. An amount of Rs. 481/- stands due towards the complainant i.e. CBC + LPC  as the complainant failed to deposit/honour his monthly EMI for the month of July 2012 Rs. 2497/- and he deposited this EMI on 24.7.2012 instead of 5.7.2012. So the complainant was legally bound to pay this amount to opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 has no objection to issue no due certificate, if complainant deposits entire outstanding amount as referred above. Ld.counsel for opposite party No.2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2 qua the complainant.
11. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant has saving bank account bearing No.3396001300001143 with opposite party No.1 bank . The complainant has obtained two wheeler loan vide loan account No. 20721897 from opposite party No.2, EMI of which was to be deducted from the aforesaid saving bank account of the complainant being maintained with opposite party No.1, on 5^th of every month. In July 2012, the EMI of Rs. 2497/- was dishonoured by opposite party No.1 on the ground that saving bank account number mentioned by the complainant/opposite party No.2 was in-complete as the complainant/opposite party No.2 has mentioned the saving bank account No. of the complainant as 339601300001143, whereas the correct saving bank account number of the complainant is 3396001300001143. The complainant came to know this fact  in the month of July 2012 and he paid this installment (EMI) to opposite party No.2 bank in cash on 24.7.2012 as is evident from the statement of account of the complainant with opposite party No.2 bank Ex.OP2/2. So the cause of action accrued to the complainant against the opposite parties in the month of July 2012 i.e. on 24.7.2012 when the complainant fully knowing all the aforesaid facts, deposited the EMI with opposite party No.2 in cash on 24.7.2012 fully knowing that his EMI for July 2012 was dishonoured by opposite party No.1 bank on account of incomplete number of the saving bank  account mentioned by the complainant/opposite party No.2. As such the complainant could file the complaint against the opposite parties on or before 24.7.2014 (within two years). But the complainant filed the present complaint against the opposite parties on 3.8.2015  i.e. after a lapse of a period of more than three years without filing any application for condonation of delay. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. B.K.Sood 2005(4) CPJ SC I that where the complaint has been filed after two years period prescribed without any application for condonation of delay, the complaint was held to be beyond the period  prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and it was further held that  the State  Commission as well as the Hon’ble National Commission has committed error in entertaining the same. Same view has been taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in case  Agra Development Authority through its Vice Chairman Vs. Army Welfare Housing Organization  2014(2) CPJ (NC) 44. Same view has been held by the Hon’ble State Commission  Punjab,Chandigarh in case Swani Motors Vs. A.K.Blaggana and Anr 1997(3) CPJ 576.
12. Resultantly we hold that complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation, as such the same is not maintainable.
13. Consequently, the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

1.02.2016                                                             ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

/R/                        ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)           (Anoop Sharma)

Member                                   Member