Delhi

East Delhi

CC/95/2017

RAKESH GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI RAM CITY FINANCE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Feb 2019

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.          95/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Institution               21/03/2017

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on              04/02/2019

                                                                                                  Date of Order                       06/02/2019 

                                                                                                       

In matter of

Mr. Rakesh Gupta    

S/o- Late Sh Lakhan Lal Gupta

R/o- H-33, Nr Vijay Chauk,     

Laxmi Nagar Delhi 110092  …………………………………………………Complainant

 

                                                                         Vs

M/s Shri Ram City Union Finance Ltd. 

A  120 A First  Floor,

Opp. Metro Pillar no. 36,  

Shakarpur, Delhi 110092 (Old Address) .………………………………………………….Opponent

 

New Address

M/s Shri Ram City Union Finance Ltd. 

C1/A2 First Floor Mragnainee Road

Dilshad Colony, Delhi 110093

 

Complainant                                                 In Person  

Opponent’s Advocate                                 Mr Tarun Deep Singh  

 

Quorum                                                         Sh Sukhdev Singh        President

                                                                        Dr P N Tiwari                Member                                                                                                   

                                                                        Mrs Harpreet Kaur      Member   

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                 

Complainant took personal loan of Rs 50,000/- from OP/ M/s Shri Ram City Union Finance Ltd. in the month of Sept. 2015 with monthly EMI of Rs 3000/- to be paid by 7^th of every month. The EMI installment to be paid through ECS from his saving bank account with PNB at Sansad Marg, New Delhi. It was also stated that OP took 7 blank signed cheques.

As in the month of Dec 2016, he could not deposit amount in bank due to demonetization, so deposited EMI amount Rs 3000/- as cash with OP vide receipt (Ex CW1/1), but PNB credited EMI amount through ECS from his saving account to OP on 14/12/2016 (Ex CW1/2), so complainant asked OP to refund extra amount of Rs 3000/- deposited as cash (Ex CW1/3), but despite of repeated calls, OP did not refund the amount. Seeing deficiency in services of OP, filed this complaint for refund of extra EMI of Rs 3000/- paid to OP with compensation of Rs one Lac and litigation charges Rs 10,000/.  

OP submitted written statement through Mr Sanjeev Kumar their authorized person nominated under Power of Attorney (Ex OPW1/1) and denied any deficiency in their services. It was admitted that complainant had taken personal loan vide Loan agreement no. CDEDHPL1508280002 on dated 28/08/2015. The said loan had to be completed in 24 months equal installments of Rs 3000/- by 7^th day of every month so complainant had opted ECS facility.  It was admitted that complainant had deposited cash Rs 3000/ as December month’s EMI directly at OP account for which receipt was given. When complainant approached for refund of EMI deposited in cash was assured to refund through cheque and the same was refunded through cheque vide no. 42144849 on 21/01/2017 (Ex OPW2/2), but complainant refused to accept the same and filed this complaint to harass the OP. It was stated there was no deficiency if OP had not issued cheque of Rs 3000/- which was deposited in cash or PNB had not credited ECS amount, but complainant deposited cash Rs 3000/-the reason best known to him. Hence, there was no deficiency in services so complaint may be dismissed.  

Complainant filed rejoinder to written statement and denied all replies submitted by OP. complainant stated that OP did not issue any cheque for a sum of Rs 3000/- despite of receiving EMI through ECS. So Op received double installment amount which clearly proves deficiency in services. He also submitted evidences through his own affidavit where he reaffirmed on oath that he relied on cash deposit receipt of Rs 3000/-for Dec EMI (Ex CW1/1) and his pass book of PNB which showed deduction of various EMI through ECs ( Ex CW1/2) and his written note to OP for refund of Rs 3000/- (Ex CW1/3). Hence, he was entitled for refund of cash deposit Rs 3000/- to OP.     

OP submitted evidence on affidavit through Mr Sanjiv Kumar, AR of OP who stated on oath that complainant had taken earlier loans also and were paid, but this was a personal loan vide Loan agreement no. CDEDHPL1508280002 on dated 28/08/2015. As complainant had deposited cash of Rs 3000/- without any demand of OP in the month of Dec. 2016, so was refunded through cheque vide no. 42144849 on 21/01/2017 (Ex OPW2/2), but complainant refused to accept the same. It was also stated that complainant had not completed his EMI as per the loan agreement and filed this complaint without any evidence of deficiency of OP, so this complaint may be dismissed.

Arguments were heard from both the parties and after perusing materials on record, order was reserved. 

We perused the facts and evidence submitted by complainant pertaining to loan payment by complainant. Here no evidence has been put on record by complainant that could prove that OP was deficient in their services; rather cash deposit installment was refunded by OP through cheque which was refused by complainant. Also we have seen from the pass book evidence, that complainant had taken other loans also and was paying, but when OP refunded the amount just within few days and complainant had refused to accept. Also there was no evidence from complainant that his loan was completed as per loan agreement and OP did not adjust his cash amount. No evidence of personal loan was closed where he filed this complaint much before closure of loan. That being so this complaint deserves to be dismissed so dismissed without any order to cost.  

 

The first free copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Regulation 18(6) of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (in short the CPR) and file be consigned to the Record Room under section 20(1) of the CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari -  Member                                                            Mrs Harpreet Kaur – Member         

 

 

                                                         Sukhdev Singh - President