| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No.256 of 25-9-2019 Decided on : 18-5-2023 Kulwant Rai aged about 58 years S/o Hans Raj R/o H.No.427, St.No.6, New Shaheed Bhagat Singh Market Colony, Rampura Phul, District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Bharatiya Model School, Patiala Mandi, Rampura Phul District Bathinda. Zonal Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal office, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda.(deleted vide order dated 26-9-2019) Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional office, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda. (deleted vide order dated 26-9-2019)
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Lalit Mohan Dogra, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh. Naveen Goyal, for OP No.1. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 deleted. ORDER Lalit Mohan Dogra, President The complainant Kulwant Rai (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, ( Now C.P. Act, 2019 here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this forum (Now Commission) against State Bank of India and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant holds and maintain Saving a/c No.550063 with opposite parties. It is alleged that complainant applied and opposite parties sanctioned car loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and opened car loan a/c No.37566271463 product: MC SBI CAR LN- NEW CAR J-17 and debited a some of Rs.5,02,950/- in loan a/c on 01 03 2018. Complainant paid regular monthly payment in his car loan a/c and opposite parties credited monthly installments in car loan a/c by corresponding debit to complainant saving a/c No.550063. It is alleged that complainant checked his saving a/c in October 2018 and was surprised to see that a an amount of Rs.2,000/- and 18,000/ were debited to his saving a/c by corresponding credit in car loan a/c on 08-10-2018. On enquiry and checking his car loan a/c, complainant came to know that opposite parties had debited a sum Rs.2,950/- on a/c of penalty etc. in his car loan a/c per month from July 2018 to October 2018 on a/c of non submission of RC Copy. The complainant alleged that opposite parties unilaterly and arbitrarily charged and debited Rs.2,950/- per month in complainant car loan a/c without prior intimation. The complainant raised objections and asked the opposite parties to reverse these charges and credit the amount in his saving a/c but opposite parties did not listen and cared to do so and misbehaved with complainant. The complainant paid total outstanding amount of Rs.4,42,426/- and cleared his car loan a/c for which opposite parties issued a no due certificate on 05-03-2019. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon the oopposite parties on 13 08 2019 in this regard, which was replied by them on 30-08-2019. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay illegal charges/penalty of Rs.11,800/- debited in complainant car loan a/c paid while clearing the total outstanding amount on 05-03-2019 and also pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment in addition to litigation expenses. On the statement of learned counsel for complainant, name of opposite parties No. 2 & 3 were deleted from the array of the opposite parties. Upon notice, opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising legal objections that the complainant has filed the present complaint on false grounds and by giving wrong information to this Commission. The complainant has got no cause of action or locus standi to file the complaint and the complainant by his own act and conduct is estopped from filing the present complaint. The complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Commission. It has been pleaded that the true facts are that while availing the car loan from the opposite parties, the complainant has executed Arrangement Letter and as per condition No. 9(c) it is provided that "In the event of delay in registration/noting the hypothecation, lien of the Bank with the Registering Authority within 120 days from the date of disbursement, the bank shall be entitled to charge Rs.5000/- (plus Goods and Services Tax) per month till the time of such registration/noting with the authority". Accordingly the opposite parties have charged the charges because the complainant has failed to get the said car registered with the registering authority within the stipulated period of 120 days. As such, amount has been charged as per rules and documents of security executed by the complainant. On merits, opposite party No.1 has reiterated its version as pleaded in legal objections and detailed above. In the end, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 25.9.2019 (Ex. C-1) and documents (Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sunil Singla, dated 18.12.2019 (Ex. OP-1/1) and documents (Ex. OP-1/2 to Ex.OP-1/4). The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant obtained car loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from opposite party No. 1 on 1-3-2018 and had been paying monthly installments regularly. The complainant checked his saving account in October, 2018 and was surprised that amounts of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 18,000/- were debited to his saving account by corresponding credit in car loan account on 8-10-2018. On inquiry, the complainant was told that opposite parties had debitted the amount of Rs. 2950/- on account of penalty per month from July, 2018 to October, 2018 on account of non-submission of copy of registration certificate. It is further argued that Rs. 2950/- per month was unilaterly and arbitrarily charged from the complainant without any notice from the complainant inspite of the fact that registration certificate of the car of the complainant was issued on 29-3-2018 and as such, the act of the opposite parties of having charged amount of Rs. 11,800/- on account of penalty without notice, amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 argued that complainant executed the arrangement letter and as per condition No. 9(c) , it is provided that in the event of delay in registration/noting, the hypothecation lien of the bank with the registering authority within 120 days from the date of disbursement, the bank shall be entitled to charge Rs. 5,000/- (plus goods and services tax) per month till the time of such registration/noting with the authority. Accordingly, opposite party No. 1 has rightly charged the said amount on failure of the complainant to get his car registered within 120 days and has prayed for dismissal of complaint. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. Admittedly complainant had obtained car loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from opposite party No. 1 on 1-3-2018 and opposite party No.1 charged Rs. 11,800/- as penalty on account of non-submission of registration certificate of car by the complainant within 120 days from the date of disbursement of loan. A perusal of registration certificate of the Car Ex. OP-1/2 shows that vehicle stands registered in the name of complainant on 29-3-2018 and vehicle was hypothecated with State Bank of India meaning therby that the vehicle was registered within one month of issuance of loan and the same is shown duly hpothecated with State Bank of India. As such, this Commission is of the view that charging of amount of Rs. 11,800/- by opposite party No. 1 on account of penalty from the complainant amounts to deficiency in service as the amount was charged without any notice to the complainant. Accordingly, complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No. 1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 11,800/- alongwith interest @9% p.a. w.e.f. Ist of October, 2018 till realization. The opposite party No. 1 is also directed to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- to complainant on account of mental tension, harassment and cost of litigation. The compliance of this order be made by opposite party No. 1within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced:- 18-05-2023 - (Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President (Shivdev Singh) Member
| |
