Delhi

East Delhi

CC/69/2015

SHIV DUTT - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.B.I - Opp.Party(s)

15 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 69/15

 

Shri Shiv Dutt Joshi

S/o Late Shri Hari Dutt Joshi

R/o C-108/02, Shalimar Garden, Ext. II

Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP                                                       ….Complainant

Vs.

1. State Bank of India

Through its Branch Manager

Anaj Mandi, Shahdara,

•  

 

2. Mange Ram Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Authorized Dealer of M/s. M.R. Hyundai

Loni Road, Opp.l Shalimar Garden

Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP                                                             ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 12.02.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 15.11.2016

Judgment Passed on: 16.11.2016

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

 

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Shri Shiv Dutt Joshi has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against State Bank of India (OP-1), and M/s. Mange Ram Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2).

2.        The facts in brief are that the complainant Shri Shiv Dutt Joshi on 24.01.2013 applied for a car loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- with State Bank of India (OP-1).  State Bank of India (OP-1) on 28.01.2013 sanctioned an amount of Rs. 2,06,915/- at the interest of Rs. 10.50 p.a. for the period of 84 months against hypothecation charge over the vehicle.  It disbursed/credited Rs. 2,00,000/- in the account of authorized dealer i.e. M/s. Mange Ram Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) on behalf of the complainant for purchasing the Santo Car and remaining amount of       Rs. 6,915/- was kept by State Bank of India (OP-1) for insurance cover as refundable amount. 

The amount was payable in installments @ Rs. 3,489/- for a period of 84 months, which was paid by the complainant till 29.06.2013.  No Dues Certificate (NOC) of dated 29.06.2013 was also issued by respondent no. 1.  After payment of the entire loan when the complainant approached for refund of Rs. 6,915/-, he was told that the same was to be refunded after one year of completion of the sanctioning car loan period.  It is further stated that on 24.03.2014, when the complainant approached State Bank of India (OP-1), the official of OP/respondent no. 1 on one pretext or the other assured the complainant that the said amount will be credited to his account.  However, the same has not been credited, hence, the complainant has prayed for refund of Rs. 6,915/- with 24% interest p.a. alongwith           Rs. 50,000/- compensation on account of harassment and Rs. 21,000/- as the cost of litigation. 

3.        In the written statement, filed on behalf of State Bank of India (OP-1), they have stated that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and State Bank of India (OP-1) as it has already issued NOC to the complainant, as admitted by him.  It has been denied that  Rs. 6,915/- was kept itself by State Bank of India (OP-1) for insurance cover as refundable amount to the complainant.  It is further stated that the complainant opted for SBI Life Insurance cover to cover the risk of loan amount and at the request of the complainant, an amount of        Rs. 6,915/- was transferred to SBI Life Insurance and Rs. 2,00,000/- was disbursed to M/s. Mange Ram Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) for purchase of Santro GLS.  It has further been stated that the complainant had not filed any SBI Life Insurance policy on record and even not mentioned any insurance policy no. issued to him as alleged by him.  Thus, they have denied their liability.

4.        M/s. Mange Ram Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) was proceeded ex-parte.        

5.        In support of its complaint, the complainant has examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  It has been stated in the affidavit that           M/s. Mange Ram Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) was a proforma party.  In the evidence, filed on behalf of State Bank of India (OP-1), he has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the reply.  He has also got exhibited arrangement letter dated 27.01.2013 as Ex.OP-1W-1/1.

6.        We have heard Ld. Counsel for OP and have perused the material placed on record as the complainant did not appear to argue.  It has been argued on behalf of OP-1 that the amount of Rs. 6,915/-, which has been claimed by the complainant was for insurance cover, which was done by OP-1.  It has further been argued that the complainant has not narrated these facts in his complaint.  They have also argued that since NOC has been issued by OP-1, they were not liable for the amount claimed.

            To appreciate the arguments, advanced on behalf of Ld. Counsel for OP-1, a look has to be made to the documents placed on record.  If the documents i.e. letter of dated 29.06.2013 issued by State Bank of India (OP-1) is perused, it is noticed that the letter says that loan account number 32793710191 in the name of Shiv Dutt Joshi has been liquidated and there was no outstanding in the said account.  Thus, from this, it comes out that the State Bank of India (OP-1) have issued NOC on clearance of the loan account.  If another letter, which is of dated 28.07.2013 (Ec.OP-1W1/1) is perused, it is noticed that in the column “Premium of SBI Life Insurance Cover”, which is optional, amount Rs. 0 have been shown.  From this document, it cannot be said that the amount, which was stated to have been transferred to SBI Life Insurance cover, the said amount was for insurance cover of the loan.  If SBI Life Insurance is a different entity, than of State Bank of India (OP-1), it was for State Bank of India (OP-1) to have put on record as to whether the amount of        Rs. 6,915/- , which was stated to have been transferred to SBI Life Insurance was refundable or not.  Since State Bank of India (OP-1) have failed to account for an amount of Rs. 6,915/-, certainly, they are liable to pay this amount.  By not paying the said amount on the demand of the complainant, State Bank of India (OP-1) have been deficient in their services.  Thus, the complainant has succeeded in showing that there was deficiency on the part of State Bank of India (OP-1) in the services provided.  No liability can be put on M/s. Mange Ram Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (OP-2) as they are only a proforma party.

7.        In view of the above, we direct OP-1 to pay an amount of             Rs. 6,915/- with compensation for an amount of Rs. 2,000/- including the cost of litigation, within a period of 60 days from the date of receiving the order, failing which, the total amount of Rs. 8,915/- will carry 9% interest from the date of filing till realization.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                              (SUKHDEV SINGH)

        Member                                                                               President