Date of Filing: 15/10/2011

        Date of Order: 24/12/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  24^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.Sc.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

C.C. NO. 1890 OF 2011

Sri. Venkatesha R,

S/o. Late. Ramaiah,

Aged About 48 years,

No.25, 2^nd Cross, Bahubalinagar,

BANGALORE-13.       

(Rep. by Advocate Sri.S.B.Mukkannappa)                               ….  Complainant.

V/s

1) The Branch Manager,

State Bank of Mysore, Main Branch,

No.644/645, Avenue Road,

Bangalore.

(Rep. by Advocate Sri.Lokesh Kumar.K.S) 

2) The Managing Director,

BMTC, Central Office, K.H.Road,

Shanthinagar, Bangalore-27.

(Rep. by Advocate Sri.B.P.Mahendra)                       …. Opposite Parties.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to pay overdue interest to opposite party No.1 and direct the opposite party No.1 to issue Loan Clearance Certificate and No Objection Certificate and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/-, are necessary:-

          The complainant is a driver under the opposite party No.2 and had obtained a vehicle loan to purchase Bajaj Pulsar bearing No. KA-04-EG-2135 from the opposite party No.1 to be repaid in 60 EMIs at Rs.1,180/.- and the opposite party No.2 had agreed to deduct it from the salary of the complainant and pay it to the opposite party No.1.  Opposite party No.1 (must be opposite party No.2) deducted the said amount from the salary of the complainant from February-2005 until January-2010 and deducted Rs.70,800/- and remitted it to the first opposite party.  When the complainant approached for the loan clearance certificate he was informed that he is still due Rs.22,128/-.  It is the opposite party No.2 who was responsible for not paying the amount in time.  Hence the amount has to be paid by the opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.1 has to issue No Due Certificate.

2(a).  In brief the version of the opposite party No.1 are:-

          The complainant was sanctioned loan on 17.11.2003.  The amount has not been repaid in time hence he has to pay installment with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.  The 1^st installment itself is paid on 19.04.2005.  For 16 months neither interest nor the principal were paid.  Hence as per the terms of the contract he is liable to pay the penal interest that has been charged.  As on 30.11.2011, the complainant is due Rs.32,121/-.  Unless this amount is paid no due certificate cannot be issued.  The statement of accounts clearly goes to show, that, he is a willful defaulter.

2(b).  In brief the version of the opposite party No.2 are:-

          There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party in paying the EMIs.  As per the loan sanctioned by the 1^st opposite party the opposite party has to deduct Rs.1,180/- per month this has been deducted from February-2005 to January-2010.  There are nearly 32 thousand employees, in all, 39 depots coming under the opposite party.  This opposite party has to take 15 to 20 days to prepare the details of each employees deducting from their salaries and debit it to the concerned banks, societies, etc., and all the amounts had to be paid in one cheuqe with respect to a particular bank.  All the allegations to the contrary are denied.

3.       To substantiate their respective cases the parties have field their respective affidavits and documents.  Heard arguments.

4.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service?
2. What Order?

5.       Our findings are:-

Point (A) & (B)         :           As per the final Order

                                      for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B :-

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant is an employee of the opposite party No.2.  The complainant had made an application for vehicle loan for which the opposite party No.1 has addressed to the 2^nd opposite party on 21.10.2003, the loan was sanctioned on the very date and the loan agreement was entered in to between the parties on that day.  The Clause-1 of the loan agreement reads thus:-

That means the complainant had agreed to pay the 1^st installment on 17.03.2004.  This first installment itself is not paid by the complainant.  The complainant has given a letter dated: 21.10.2003 authorizing the IInd opposite party to deduct the EMIs from his salary and pay it to the 1^st opposite party.  This authorization letter is produced by the 1^st opposite party.  This bears the signature and seal of the 2^nd opposite party. 

7.       Further it is seen from the statement of accounts produced by the opposite parties and the pay slips filed by the complainant that the opposite party No.2 started deducting the EMIs of Rs.1,180/- per month from 23.02.2005 onwards up to 27.01.2010 and paid the 60 installments, but the opposite party No.2 who has deducted Rs.1,180/- per month from 17.03.2004 has not deducted the amount from the complainant’s salary till 23.02.2005.  It is the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.2 in this regard. 

8.       Further it is seen that the opposite party No.2 has paid these installments not immediately but paid the following amounts on the following days to the 1^st opposite party:-

That means the opposite party No.2 though he has deducted the installments from the account of the complainant has not immediately remitted to the account of the complainant with the 1^st opposite party and also not credited Rs.1180/- pm but credited Rs.1168 pm, this is nothing but deficiency in service.  When the opposite party No.2 has agreed to deduct the amount as per the letter dated: 20.10.2003 received by it from the complainant and the opposite party No.2 is bound to deduct the salary from 17.04.2004 and pay it to the complainant’s account within a week from the date of the deduction from the salary, but though it has deducted from the salary on the 23^rd day of every month till it has not repaid the same, but taken months together to repay the same even the amount has not been paid regularly and in full.  Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.2. 

9.       In this case as per the salary slip the complainant knew that EMI has been deducted from his salary, but that has not been paid to the 1^st opposite party by the 2^nd opposite party.  It was contended during the course of arguments that the 2^nd opposite party is having more than 4000 employees and it is impossible for it to pay the installments to banks, societies, etc., immediately after deducting from the salary.  The opposite party No.2 was knowing full about its inability to deduct and pay it to the concerned hence it would have avoided in agreeing to deduct the amounts from the salary and pay it to the Bank, it could have asked its employees to take the loan on their own and pay it on their own, but it has accepted the terms and conditions.  Hence it was bound to repay the loan on behalf of the complainant to the 1^st opposite party without causing any delay.  The delay has been caused by the 2^nd opposite party, hence the opposite party No.1 charged penal interest as per the terms. 

10.     Even otherwise the complainant was also duty bound to see whether his installment has been deducted properly and paid it to the Bank he was also careless to some extent.  There is contributory negligence on his part also.  Even the 1^st opposite party is negligent, when it has not received the amount as agreed it should have written to the complainant and to the 2^nd opposite party about the delay and about charging penal interest that has not been done.  Hence under these circumstances, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and also there is contributory negligence on the part of the complainant.  Hence under these circumstances if we direct the opposite party No.2 to pay to the 1^st opposite party to the loan account of the complainant the sum of Rs.11000/- and complainant to pay the sum of Rs.11,000/- to the 1^st opposite party and 1^st opposite party to waive the balance and issue no due certificate to the complainant we think that will meet the ends of justice.  Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

-: ORDER:-

1.        The complaint is Allowed-in-part.

2.        The complainant and the 2^nd opposite party has to pay Rs.11,000/- each to the 1^st opposite party towards the vehicle loan of the complainant with respect to the vehicle bearing No. KA-04 EG-2135 and the 1^st opposite party has to waive the remaining loan within 30 days from the date of this order. 

3.        The opposite party No.1 shall issue Loan Clearance Certificate after receiving the said amount as ordered at serial No.2 above from the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party within 60 days from the date of this order.

4.       Both parties are directed to comply with the order as ordered above and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 75 days.

5.       Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

6.       Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 24^th Day of December 2011)

MEMBER                                                 MEMBER                                       PRESIDENT