DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.872/2006
Sh. Kailash Nath
R/o H.No.3, Gali No.2,
Balbir Nagar, Near H-3/93,
Sultanpur, New Delhi-110041 ……Complainant
Versus
The Branch Manager
Standard Chartered Bank
Consumer Bank- Auto Collections Unit (North),
17, Parliament Street, Allahabad Bank Building,
New Delhi-110001 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 10.04.06 Date of Order : 31.12.15
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Brief facts of the case are that Complainant had purchased a Santro Car bearing No.DL-8C-G-4662 for his family use and got the same hypothecated with the OP vide agreement No.52205450601. He was sanctioned over draft facility/ limit of Rs.1,88,000/- by OP thereby charging an interest @ 19.5% per annum thereon. He had started depositing the money towards the amount withdrawn by him and he had also availed the overdraft facility from time to time. He demanded the statement of account regarding amount deposited by him with the OP to know the balance due but the OP had not supplied the same. After great pursuasion the OP supplied the statement of account. On scrutiny he found that amount of Rs.50,000/- was shown on 30.08.10 wherein he had withdrawn only Rs.30,000/-. In the statement of A/C dated 05.02.05, it was shown as withdrawal of Rs.18,000/- on 20.01.2005 and again Rs.20,000/- on 07.05.2005 but he had not withdrawn the said amounts. He had requested the OP many times to correct the entries and adjust the excess amount but the OP did not care to do it. The OP vide letter dated 17.01.06 advised him to contact the OP parliament street office. He met the officials of OP but they had not shown the cheques for an amount of Rs.50,000/- Rs.18,000/- & Rs.20,000/- withdrawn by him. He requested many times to the OP to rectify the amount but no reply was received from the OP. He sent a legal notice on 15.02.2006 to the OP but till date no reply is received. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP the Complainant has prayed as under:-
- Direct the OP to correct the entry of Rs.50,000/- by replacing the amount of Rs.50,000/- dated 13.08.2003 in the statement of Account dated 06.09.03, deleting the entries for Rs.18,000/- dated 20.01.05 in the statement of account dated 05.02.06 and Rs.20,000/- dated 07.05.05 in the statement of account dated 06.06.05,
- Direct the OP to withdraw all sorts of penalties levied on the delayed payments and also withdraw/delete the interest added in the balance amount and to correct the statement of account from the beginning to the end and not to levy any sort of penalty since the day the payment of the amount is stopped and also not to add the interest for relevant period.
- Direct the OP to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.60,000/- with the cost of the complaint as damages
OP in the written statement has stated that the Complainant had approached the OP for overdraft facility and entered into an agreement with the OP. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement the time was the essence of the agreement and he had to pay minimum due payment and he had agreed that he will pay regularly without committing any default but he has committed default in making the payment of the same. They sent a notice on 17.01.06 requesting him to clear the outstanding dues but despite the receipt of the notice he failed to move and clear the outstanding dues. After receiving the notice he filed a false and baseless case before this forum. He had withdrawn the amount but he had suppressly denied the same. The Complainant had withdrawn a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 13.08.03, Rs.18,000/- on 20.01.05 & Rs.20,000/- on 07.05.05 and the same were withdrawn through cheques. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has not filed any rejoinder/replication.
Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. S. Kauser Abbas, AR has been filed in evidence on behalf of OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. We have heard the arguments of the Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Parties have failed to mark the exhibit nos. or annexure nos. on their respective documents.
It is not in dispute that Complainant had purchased a Santro Car bearing No.DL-8C-G-4662 and got the same hypothecated with the OP vide agreement No.52205450601. He was sanctioned over draft facility/ limit of Rs.1,88,000/- by OP thereby charging an interest @ 19.5% per annum thereon. It is the case of the Complainant that he had withdrawn only Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- on 13.08.2003 as wrongly recorded/ shown in the statement of account dated 06.09.2003 and had also not withdrawn Rs.18,000/- on 20.01.05 and Rs.20,000/- on 07.05.05. The OP has placed on record the copies of three cheques from a perusal of which it is proved that the Complainant had withdrawn the amount of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.18,000/- and Rs.20,000/-. Complainant has not led any evidence to the contrary.
Details of the three cheques are summed up as under:
Cheque No. Date Amount (Rs.)
605313 13.08.2003 50,000/-
875355 07.05.2005 20,000/-
875352 20.01.2005 18,000/-
In view of above, it is proved that the OP had given a overdraft facility of Rs.1,88,000/- to the Complainant and he had withdrawn the money from the bank time to time. The above cheques were issued by the Complainant. The Complainant has not filed any documentary proof that he had not issued the cheques. Therefore, he failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP.
We hold that the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint with some ulterior motives. Hence, we dismiss the complaint with special costs of Rs. 7000/- to be paid by the complainant to the OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 31.12.15.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
