Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

326/2009

J.Saravanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager Citi Finanacial Consumer Financ - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Rajkumar

18 Dec 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 21.01.2009

                                                                          Date of Order : 18.12.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP., : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.326/2009

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

                                 

J. Saravanan,

S/o. S. Jayachandran,

No.56/39-G, Mettu Street,

Villivakkam,

Chennai – 600 049.                                                      .. Complainant.                                              

 

            ..Versus..

 

The Branch Manager,

CITI Financial Consumer Finance India Limited,

No.81, Vykan Towers,

Thirumalai Pillai Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                  ..  Opposite party.

          

Counsel for complainant      :  M/s. S. Rajakumar & others

Counsel for opposite party  :  M/s. Kanth & Associates & others

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to return back the sum of Rs.2,128/- with 18% interest from the date of deduction to till date and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for unfair trade practice, for willfull deficiency in service, inconvenience, untold hardship etc with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he availed personal loan from the opposite party under loan account No. 12391405, dated:13.06.2007 for a sum of Rs.40,000/- after deduction towards  processing fee, tax and Life Shield Single Premium received a sum of Rs.35,905.11/-.  The complainant submits that the said personal loan amount shall be repaid by way of 36 EMIs @ Rs.2,128/- each.  The complainant submits that he has foreclosed the entire personal loan and availed additional loan vide account No.14933150, dated 05.07.2007.  The complainant submits that on 12.04.2008, when the complainant went to book orders with Hotel Saravana Bhavan for his family function given the debit card issued by Karnataka Bank Ltd., for settling the amount.   To his shock and surprise, the amount could not be debited due to insufficient funds.   After verifying the same, the complainant found that the opposite party debited a sum of Rs.2,128/- on 05.04.2008 and a sum of Rs. 3,009/- has been debited on 12.04.2008 respectively.  Thereby, the complainant was constrained to pledge his jewels in order to settle the bill of Hotel Saravana Bhavan.  The complainant states that there is no necessity to debit a sum of  Rs.2,128/- by the opposite party.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated:07.05.2008 to the opposite party for which, the opposite party sent a reply dated:11.09.2008 but not come forward to settle the demands of the complainant.   Thereafter, this complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the   opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite party states that the complainant availed personal loan of Rs.40,000/- vide loan no. 12391405,  after due deduction of Rs. 1,250/- towards processing fee, Rs.155/- towards tax and Rs.2,689.89 towards Life Shield Single Premium and a sum of Rs. 35905.11/- has been paid to the complainant.  The opposite party states that the complaint is a chronic defaulter in payment of loan, the complainant has agreed to deduct the loan amount through ECS from his account.  The opposite party states that while the personal loan is pending, the complainant approached for additional loan / topup loan from the opposite party.   Hence, the opposite party sanctioned a sum of Rs.70,000/- out of which the outstanding loan amount  of Rs. 36,991/- was deducted  and sum of Rs. 33,002/- alone disbursed to the complainant.   Thereby, the 1^st personal loan of Rs.40,000/- was foreclosed.  A sum of Rs.2,135/- was deducted towards  processing fee  of  additional / topup loan.   The opposite party states that the ECS debit in question of Rs.2,128/- was also presented in advance and after prior intimation knowledge or confirmation of the complainant.  The opposite party states that the said amount of Rs.2,128/- was adjusted towards the EMI of the topup loan  bearing No.14933150.  The opposite party states that the adjustment of a sum of Rs.2,128/- towards the EMI was created and solely due to the negligence of the complainant.  The opposite party states that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and imaginary.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 are marked on the side of the opposite party. 

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get return of a sum of Rs.2128/- debited by the opposite party unreasonably with interest at the rate of 18% per annum as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for unfair trade practice, wilful deficiency in service, mental agony etc with cost of Rs. 5,000/- as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents written arguments etc.   The complainant pleaded and contended that he availed personal loan from the opposite party under loan account No. 12391405, dated:13.06.2007 for a sum of Rs.40,000/- after deduction towards  processing fee, tax and Life Shield Single Premium and received a sum of Rs.35,905.11/-  is admitted.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the said personal loan amount shall be repaid by way of 36 EMIs @ Rs.2,128/- each.   Further the contention of the complainant is that he has foreclosed the entire personal loan and availed additional loan vide account No.14933150, dated 05.07.2007.  But the complainant has not produced any document to prove the 1^st loan and its foreclosure.  The said additional loan shall be repayable by way of 42 equal monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.3,009/-.  The complainant also paid the entire loan amount as per Ex.A3  Statement of account which is not denied.  Further the contention  of the complainant is that on 12.04.2008, when the complainant went to book orders with Hotel Saravana Bhavan as per Ex.A4 for his family function given the debit card issued by Karnataka Bank Ltd., for settling the amount  to his shock and surprise, the amount could not be debited due to insufficient funds.   After due verification, it was found that the opposite party debited a sum of Rs.2,128/- on 05.04.2008 and sum of Rs. 3,009/- has been debited on 12.04.2008 respectively vide Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.  Thereby, the complainant was constrained to pledge his jewels in order to settle the bill of Hotel Saravana Bhavan which caused great mental agony.  Ex.A5 is the receipt obtained from the Pawn broker for pledging the jewels.  Further the contention of the complainant is that there is no necessity to debit a sum of  Rs.2,128/- by the opposite party.  The EMI related to 1^st loan also closed proves the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Hence, the complainant issued legal notice dated:07.05.2008 as per Ex.A6 to the opposite party for which the opposite party sent an evasive reply dated:11.09.2008 as per Ex.A7.   Hence, the complainant is constrained to file this case claiming refund of Rs.2,128/- and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

6.     The contention of the opposite party is that admittedly, the complainant availed personal loan of Rs.40,000/- vide loan no. 12391405,  after due deduction of Rs. 1,250/- towards processing fee, Rs.155/- towards tax and Rs.2,689.89 towards Life Shield Single Premium and a sum of Rs. 35905.11/- has been paid to the complainant.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complaint is a chronic defaulter in payment of loan the complainant has agreed to deduct the loan amount through ECS from his account.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that while the personal loan is pending, the complainant approached for additional loan / topup loan from the opposite party.   Hence, the opposite party sanctioned a sum of Rs.70,000/- out of which the outstanding loan amount  of Rs. 36,991/- was deducted and a sum of Rs. 33,002/- alone disbursed to the complainant.   Thereby, the 1^st personal loan of Rs.40,000/- was foreclosed.  A sum of Rs.2,135/- was deducted towards  processing fee  of  additional / topup loan.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the ECS debit in question of Rs.2,128/- was also presented in advance and after prior intimation, knowledge or confirmation of the complainant.  But the opposite party has not produced any records.  

7.     Further the contention of the opposite party that the said amount of Rs.2,128/- was adjusted towards the EMI of the topup loan  bearing No.14933150; is not acceptable because in Ex. A3, it is very clear that the opposite party has withdrawn a sum of Rs.2,128/- on 05.04.2008 ECS-DR-TPCCFIL.  On the other hand as per Ex.A2, the complainant has paid the entire 42 instalments which has not reflected any amount muchless a sum of Rs.3,009/- debited on  12.04.2008.  Equally, on 05.04.2008. a sum of Rs.3,009/- has been debited and credited in the loan account  of the complainant proves deficiency in service.   Further the contention of the opposite party that  the adjustment of a sum of Rs.2,128/- is towards the EMI is not acceptable in absence of any document.  The opposite party also has not produced any evidence to prove the said contention also establishes the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and imaginary.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is considered that the opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,128/- being additionally debited from the complainant’s Account along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint (i.e.) 21.01.2009 to till the date of this order (i.e.) 18.12.2018 with a compensation  of Rs.15,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

  In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,128/- (Rupees Two thousand one hundred and twenty eight  only) being additionally debited from the complainant’s Account along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint (i.e.) 21.01.2009 to till the date of this order (i.e.) 18.12.2018 and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards compensation of damages for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 18^th day of December 2018. 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

		Copy of ration card
		Copy of letter from the Citi Financial and statement of Accounts
		Copy of the Pass Book and statement of Accounts in Karnataka Bank
		Copy of receipt of Hotel Saravana Bhavan
		Copy of receipt from the Pawn Broker
		Copy of legal notice along with acknowledgement
		Copy of reply notice by the opposite parties

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.B1	16.07.2009	Copy of the Credit Approval Sheet
Ex.B2		Copy of loan agreement
Ex.B3	08.02.2010	Copy of Statement of Accounts

 

 

 MEMBER-I                          MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT