DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of April 2009.
Present : Smt. H. Seena, President : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair (Member) : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K. (Member) C.C.No.81/2007
T.S.Swaminathan S/o. Subramanyan Therayamkode House Ezhakkad Mundur Post Palakkad. - Complainant (Adv.Rajesh.M ) V/s
1. Branch Manager Centurian Bank of Punjab Ltd Suharsha Towers Ground Floor Thrissur. (Adv. K. Sunilkumar & Kamalchand.B) 2. FRM , Centurain Bank of Punjab Ltd Suharsha Towers Ground Floor Thrissur. - Opposite Parties (Adv. K. Sunilkumar & Kamalchand.B)
O R D E R By Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
Case of the complainant in brief is as follows
The complainant has availed vehicle loans from the opposite parties for purchasing two vehicles registered as KL-9-T-5122 Tempo Mini Door for an amount of Rs.3,92,000/- and Ashok Leyland Bus registeration No. KL-9-U-1282 for Rs.14,94,000/-. The EMI for Tempo Minidoor and bus is Rs.9,916/- and Rs.38,000/- respectively. As per the agreement the complainant has given 48 post dated cheques for EMI. The complainant has purchased the vehicle for earning his livelihood by way of transport service. The complainant was regular in payment of monthly instalments. According to the complainant with a malafide intention to get unjust enrichment, the Opposite party has taken two payments through cheque for an amount of Rs.38,000/- each into the EMI of the tempo minidoor. Upto the month of May' 2007, the complainant has to pay 14 total monthly instalments of Rs.9,916/- - 2 - and it comes to Rs.1,38,824/-. Up to the month of 25.05.07, the complainant herein has paid 16 monthly installments. The Opposite parties have willfully taken instalments which are paid towards the due of the bus, towards the account of tempo minidoor. The say of the complainant is that the amount which is taken into the account of the tempo minidoor is not reflecting in the accounts of the opposite parties. The opposite parties computed over due charges and excess interest and cheque bouncing charges illegally upon the account. The complainant had remitted 13 monthly installments for the period of 15/06/2006 till 31/05/2007 towards the Ashok Leyland bus. If the 2 installments remitted by the complainant has not been withheld in the account of the tempo minidoor, there will not be any default as alleged in the account statement of the Opposite parties. Thereafter for correcting the fault the complainant contacted the opposite parties on various occasions. They did not rectify their mistake but threatened the complainant saying, they will repossess both the vehicles of the complainant. All these acts of the Opposite parties are clear deficiency of service. The complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.7,964/-. Hence the complaint. The complainant prays for an order directing the Opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings and to rectify the irregularities in the accounts .
The contentions of Opposite parties are as follows:
The Opposite parties admitted that the complainant had availed two vehicle loan for purchasing Tempo mini door and Ashok Leyland bus. The EMI for the bus, Rs.38,000/- has to be paid on 15th of every month and is having 48 installments. Also the EMI for the Tempo Mini door, Rs.9,916/- has to be paid on 25th of every month and is having 47 installments. The opposite parties stated that initially the complainant was a defaulter and later only he started to pay the installments. Further the Opposite parties contented that the installment of Rs.38,000/- for September 2006 for the bus was wrongly taken into the account of the tempo and immediately knowing the mistake the Ist opposite party cleared the same. According to the Opposite parties, the complainant has not suffered any loss of Rs.7,964/-. The opposite parties stated that from 2007 February onwards the cheques given for the payments of Bus were returned due to insufficient funds and the cheques for tempo from 2007 March onwards also returned because of insufficient funds in the account of the complainant. The opposite parties submitted that the mistake of crediting wrongly in another account was on the very same day rectified by the 1st Opposite party. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite - 3 - parties. The complainant had caused a huge loss to the opposite party by non payment of monthly instalments. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents. Exhibit A1 & A2 marked. Opposite parties filed proof affidavit. Matter was heard. Points considered by us: Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite parties? If so, what is the relief and cost?
Point No.1 We perused relevant documents on record. The Opposite parties admitted that the instalment for the bus on 2006 September for an amount of Rs.38,000/- was wrongly taken into the account of the tempo and immediately knowing the mistake the Opposite parties had cleared that mistake. But according to the complainant for correcting the fault the complainant contacted the opposite parties on various occasions and they did not rectify their mistakes, but threatened the complainant saying that they will repossess both the vehicles of the complainant. Since the mistake committed was admitted by the opposite parties and clearing of the mistake on the same day as stated by the opposite parties is not proved, we hold the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled for compensation Point No. 2 According to the complainant, he suffered a loss of Rs.7,964/- on account of the mistake on the part of the opposite parties. The same is not proved by the complainant. We are of the view that an amount of Rs.3,000/- as compensation will meet the ends of justice.
In the result complaint allowed. Opposite parties are directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service together with Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of April 2009.
PRESIDENT (SD)
MEMBER (SD) MEMBER (SD) - 4 - APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of Complainant Nil
Witness examined on the side of Opposite party Nil Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext. A1 – Statement of accounts regarding Tempo dated 08.06.07 Ext A2 - Statement of accounts dated 08.06.07 regarding Ashok Leyland Bus
Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party Nil Costs Allowed. Rs.1000/- (Rupess One thousand only)
Forwarded/By order
Senior Superintendent
......................Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K
......................Smt.Preetha.G.Nair
......................Smt.Seena.H | | 
