IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> CC 160/09 DATED 21.04.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> Complainant P.R.Narayanaswamy,<br /> S/o P.N.ramachandran, Nestle India Ltd., Industrial Area, Nanjangud, Mysore-571301.<br /> (By Sri. V.Ashwini Rao, Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. Branch Manager, SBI Credit Cards Pvt. Ltd., SBI Card & Payment Services Pvt.Ltd., No.1774, 2nd Floor, 5th Cross, Anikethana Road, Kuvempunagar, Mysroe-570024.<br /> 2. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Sayyaji Rao Road, Mysore-570001.<br /> 3. Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, 14th Cross, R.P.Road, Nanjangud-571301.<br /> 4. Manager, SBI Cards Tower C, 12th Floor, Block 2 Building 3, Infinity Tower, DLF Cyber City, Haryana, India-1.<br /> (By Sri.H.S.K, Advocate for O.P.1 and<br /> O.P.4 - Exparte)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 28.04.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 15.01.2010<br /> Date of order : 21.04.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 3 MONTHS 6 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under section 12 of the C.P.Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties, seeking direction to the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. towards compensation and further, to direct the first opposite party to close the loan account taking into consideration, the amount already paid.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint it is alleged that, the complainant has S.B. Account with third opposite party. The second opposite party is an association bank of third opposite party. Accepting the offer made by the second opposite party, the complainant availed credit card facility. The first opposite party over phone contacted the complainant and offered a loan of Rs.74,000/- at an interest of 12% p.a. EMI of 48 months each of Rs.2,282/- was advised. The complainant accepted the offer and availed the said loan through a cheque dated 04.04.2007, which was encashed on 19.04.2007. The complainant remitted two installments against the loan. The complainant realized then that other hidden costs like processing charges, service tax, financial charges, collection fees, which were not revealed at the time of granting loan, exceed 12%. That was communicated on 03.09.2007 long after loan was advanced. Hidden costs were extra financial burden, which the complainant could ill afford. Unable to bear the same, the complainant decided to close the loan account, and contacted the SBI Credit Card Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. It was explained that the complainant have to bear 3% fore-closure charges and the amount payable was Rs.70,705.63 and complainant was asked to forward said payment to SBI Credit Card Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon. The complainant towards payment of the said amount dispatched a cheque of the third opposite party by registered post to Gurgaon Branch as advised. The opposite party received the said fore-closure cheque, which is reflected in the monthly statement of July 2007. A cheque pick-up fees of Rs.61.80 was charged on the complainant. The complainant received monthly statement of August 2007 and shocked to see that the fore-closure cheque remained un claimed/dis-honoured for want of sufficient funds. To and more insult to the injury, a dishonour fees of Rs.561.80 was debited in the account of the complainant. The Manager, Customer Service in the reply dated 03.09.2007 to the letter of the complainant dated 21.08.2007 has clarified dis-honour of fore-closure cheque. By the said letter for the first time, the complainant was informed of 12.36% Government Service tax applicable to the loan. On verifying the passbook sheet of his S.B. Account with third opposite party, the complainant found indeed there were sufficient funds to honour fore-closure cheque. The complainant addressed a letter dated 07.09.2007 to ascertain, whether fore-closure cheque was realized or not. By the reply dated 19.09.2007, it was informed, the cheque was not presented till date. Over phone, the first opposite party threatened that if monthly payments were not made recovery agent would be sent. Under the circumstances, the complainant continued to remit the monthly installments and was subjected to untold financial and psychological misery and harassment for no fault of his. He is paying interest unnecessarily. So also, other charges. Despite having remitted EMI’s and other charges from April 2007, the letter dated 12.02.2009 shows a sum of Rs.98,603.13 as outstanding. Another act of mischief of first opposite party by the letter dated Nil referring cheque issued by the complainant bearing No.230267 dated 21.01.2009 for Rs.4,300/- was not banked/encashed. Because, the cheque was out station cheque and penal charges have been levied as reflected in the monthly statement of February 2009. All payments made by the complainant to the first opposite party against loan till date were out station cheques and were encashed. Inneed, even the said cheque has been encashed on 09.03.2009. Said facts establish gross negligence, conningness and deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party. Accordingly, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> 3. Initially, notice was issued to the first opposite party only. Later, fourth opposite party was impleaded. Despite due service of notice, the fourth opposite party has remained absent, is set exparte. First opposite party has appeared before the Forum through advocate but no version is filed.<br /> <br /> 4. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and certain documents are produced. No affidavit for first opposite party is filed, when the matter was posted for arguments, the first opposite party and the advocate remained absent. We have heard the arguments of learned advocate for the complainant and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly in affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- The complainant claims that, he availed loan from the first opposite party of Rs.74,000/- at an interest of 12% p.a. repayable in 48 EMI’s each of Rs.2,282/-. The first opposite party though appeared before the Forum through an advocate, not filed version and denied or disputed the said claim of the complainant. The loan was advanced by the first opposite party through a cheque dated 04.04.2007, which has been encashed by the complainant on 19.04.2007. The complainant further claims that, he received a communication dated 03.09.2007 and realized that the first opposite party bank in addition to the interest, hidden cost like processing charges, service tax, finance charges, collection fees were levied. Hence, the complainant decided to close the loan account and on contact, the first opposite party informed that complainant has to bear 3% fore-closure charges and including the same, an amount of Rs.70,705.63 is payable. At the cost of repetition, this claim put forth by the complainant is also not denied or disputed by the first opposite party<br /> <br /> 8. Accordingly, the complainant sent a cheque bearing No.364992 of the third opposite party bank dated 11.06.2007 for the said amount. In the monthly statement of August 2007, it was disclosed that the fore-closure cheque noted above remained dishonoured for funds insufficient. In the same letter, first opposite party informed 12.36% Government Service Tax is applicable to the loan.<br /> <br /> 9. The complainant claims that in fact, in his S.B. Account maintained by him with third opposite party, there was sufficient fund for realization of the fore-closure cheque. To substantiate this fact, the complainant has produced not only is S.B. Account extract, but also endorsement of the third opposite party on the application and so also, letter of the third opposite party. From these documents, firstly it is established by the complainant that in his account, there was sufficient fund to honour the cheque in question and secondly, the said cheque was not at all presented or forwarded to the third opposite party for encashment/realization. Considering these documents, it has been established by the complainant that, without sending the cheque in question for realization, it has been taken that, the cheque has been dis-honoured for funds insufficient.<br /> <br /> 10. Also, it is relevant to note that, the first opposite party informed the complainant through the letter dated 24.01.2009 that a cheque was not encashed as it was out station cheque. In this regard, firstly the complainant submits, in fact other out station cheques have been encashed and more over, the said cheque also has been encashed on 09.03.2009.<br /> <br /> 11. Considering the facts noted above, absolutely we have no reasons to dis-believe the claim of the complainant regarding negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party.<br /> <br /> 12. Through the credit card facility, the loan was advanced to the complainant. In the present case, we are concerned only in respect of the loan of Rs.74,000/- repayable in 48 EMI’s each of Rs.2,282/-. In respect of any other amount due from the complainant to the first opposite party pertaining to credit card in question, that being not subject matter of the present case, need not be considered and decided. Hence, we have to consider, now the liability of the complainant so far concerned to the said loan and additional amount charged or claimed by the first opposite party.<br /> <br /> 13. Since, loan is to be repaid in 48 EMI’s, there is no question of payment of any other charges, service tax, finance charge, Government Service tax etc., as the first opposite party has claimed which reveals from the documents on record. Hence, the said claim is not payable by the complainant. The complainant has stated that, he has paid the EMI’s and details of the same are mentioned in the complaint. Further, he has claimed even after filing the complaint, because of the threat or coersive attitude of the first opposite party EMI’s are being paid. However, from the records exactly we cannot make out as on today, the total EMI’s paid by the complainant. It is relevant to note that, within three months from the date of availing loan in the year 2007 itself, because the first opposite party charged and claimed certain excess amount, the complainant decided to close the account and towards the balance due in the loan amount, cheque was issued by the complainant and the said cheque was not realized and though, there was sufficient funds in the account of the complainant, it is stated by the bank that said cheque has been dis-honoured. Considering this aspect, it is to be said that the first opposite party forced the complainant to continue the loan account and various additional charges have been levied. It is not permissible and it amounts to deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 14. Under the circumstances, the first opposite party shall have to close the loan account of the complainant receiving all the 48 EMI’s each of Rs.2,282/-. If any EMI’s are due, the complainant shall pay the remaining EMI’s and on receiving the same, loan account shall have to be closed by the first opposite party without charging or claiming any other charges of any kind, so far concerned to the loan account.<br /> <br /> 15. The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. As noted above, though in the year 2007 itself, the complainant had decided to close the loan account by paying the entire amount due for which cheque was issued, without sending the said cheque for realization or collection, it has been noted that, cheque has been dis-honoured for funds insufficient and thereby as noted above, the first opposite party forced the complainant to continues with the loan account, consequently paying EMI’s regularly which results burden of payment of interest on the complainant. However, since the complainant has availed the loan and utilized the same, under the circumstances, the compensation claimed to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- is on higher side. Under the circumstances, awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- will meet the ends of justice.<br /> <br /> 16. Accordingly, our finding on the above point is partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 17. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The first opposite party is hereby directed to close the loan account in question of the complainant, within a month from the date of the order receiving in all 48 EMI’s each of Rs.2,282/- only. If any EMI’s remained unpaid by the complainant, the complainant shall pay the said EMI’s within 15 days from the date of this order.<br /> 3. It is made clear that, except the EMI’s each of Rs.2,282/-, the first opposite party shall not charge or claim any fees or tax.<br /> 4. The first opposite party shall pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and inconvenience caused.<br /> 5. So also, first opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.<br /> 6. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 21st April 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />