6<br /> <br /> DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> <br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No. 225 of 06.08.2007<br /> <br /> Decided on : 12-12-2007 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Surinder Kumar Sharma Advocate S/o Late Sh. Om Parkash Sharma, R/o D-1334 (New 3694), Street No.1, New Basti, Bathinda. ... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Bathinda.<br /> <br /> The C.M.D. Corporate Office, ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400 051.<br /> <br /> The Manager/Prop, Raja Motors, Goniana Road, Bathinda.<br /> <br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> <br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> <br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> <br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> <br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. N.K. Jeet, Advocate.<br /> <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2.<br /> <br /> Sh. K K Vinocha, Counsel for Opposite party No. 3. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> Instant one is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to correct/reconcile his loan account and accept prepayment without any foreclosure charges; pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation; Rs. 50,000/- for causing mental agony and undue harassment and Rs. 5,000/- for litigation expenses including counsel's fee.<br /> <br /> Factual matrix of the case as emanates from the complaint itself may be stated as under :-<br /> <br /> Complainant has purchased motor cycle Bajaj Discover make from opposite party No. 3 on 26.7.06. Its price as per retail invoice issued by it was Rs. 41,550/-. Down payment of Rs. 18,000/- was made by him to opposite party No. 3. Balance amount of Rs. 23,550/- was provided as loan by opposite party No. 1. Before advancing the loan, opposite party No. 1 had asked him to deposit 24 blank signed cheques. He was further apprised by opposite party No. 1 that loan is provided at 0% interest and that he would not have to incur any file charges. Cost of the registration of the vehicle was to be borne by him. In this manner, principal amount advanced by opposite party No. 1 was Rs. 23,550/- and he was to repay the same. He paid a sum of Rs. 14,620/- upto June 2007 in 10 installments through cheques issued in blank in favour of opposite party No. 1. Thereafter he made enquiry about the outstanding loan amount. He was surprised to find that a sum of Rs. 18,227/- was shown as outstanding principal amount after adjustment of the 10th installment. Subsequently he obtained details of the loan account from opposite party No. 1, it was found that instead of Rs. 23,550/-, the bank has shown Rs. 29,000/- as principal loan amount. Instead of 0% interest, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are charging interest @ 19.01% from him on the loan amount. He alleges that fraud has been played upon him in-connivance with opposite party No. 3. Opposite party No. 1 was approached by him to get the discrepancies corrected and for foreclose the loan account as he wanted to prepay the loan amount in lump-sum. Officials of opposite party No. 1 refused to correct the discrepancies and even to give any explanation for it. They further demanded foreclosure charges of Rs. 818.39 besides charging further interest @ 4.49% at outstanding principal amount which he wanted to deposit in lump-sum. Opposite party No. 3 did not give any explanation to him about the adjustment of Rs. 18,000/- paid by him as down payment at the time of purchase of motor cycle and about advancement of Rs. 29,000/- as alleged principal loan amount. He got served legal notice dated 2.7.07 through his counsel upon the opposite parties requesting to correct/reconcile loan account and accept the prepayment of the loan amount without any foreclosure charges. They did not send its reply. As per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, the opposite parties are bound not to present any further cheque for payment from the date of receiving the notice without settling the loan amount. It is further alleged that after receiving the legal notice dated 2.7.07, opposite party No. 1 had sent hired recovery agents armed with weapons to his house for the recovery of the outstanding loan amount. They threatened and humiliated him in front of his family member and neighbours. Threatening and humiliation of recovery agents of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 has caused him mental and physical pain. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> On being put to notice, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is based on false facts. Only remedy available to the complainant is to file civil suit for rendition of accounts as there is relationship of debtor and creditor and complaint requires oral and documentary evidence and as such, it is liable to be dismissed. On merits, they admit the factum of financing of the vehicle by ICICI Bank. A sum of Rs. 29,000/- was financed. Loan agreement was executed by him for this amount. No blank cheque was given by the complainant. There was no commitment for giving loan at 0% interest. They admit that 10 installments have been paid by the complainant. No fraud has been played upon the complainant by them. Complainant was made fully aware about the loan amount as well as schedule of re-payment. He can always foreclose his loan account as per terms of the agreement. They admit that complainant is consumer. Remaining averments in the complaint stands denied.<br /> <br /> Opposite party No. 3 filed separate reply taking legal objections that complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint and complaint pertains to rendition of accounts and as such, it is not maintainable before this Forum. It admits that motor cycle was purchased against price of Rs. 41,550/- out of which Rs. 13,340/- were received as down payment on account of price of motor cycle and balance payment of Rs. 28,210/- was received from the bank as arranged by him through finance/loan as per terms and conditions unknown to it, but directly in between him and ICICI Bank. It denies that down payment of Rs. 18, 000/- was made. His representative most probably his son admitting it to be correct had put his signatures on the receipt/voucher. Complainant has no cause of action against it. It does not admit the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> <br /> In support of his averments contained in the complainant, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of report of Sigma Heart (Ex. C-2), photocopy of discharge summary (Ex. C-3), photocopy of bill No. 1548 (Ex. C-4), photocopy of letter dated 12.3.01 (Ex. C-5), photocopy of prescription slip (Ex. C-6), photocopy of account statement (Ex. C-7), photocopy of letter dated 18.6.07 (Ex. C-8), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-9), photocopy of pamphlet (Ex. C-10), photocopy of cuttings of news papers (Ex. C-11 to Ex. C-14) and photocopy of pamphlet (Ex. C-15).<br /> <br /> In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 affidavit of Sh. Ashish Bansal, Collection Manager (Ex. R-5), photocopy of Credit Facility Application Form (Ex. R-6) and on behalf of opposite party No. 3 affidavit of Sh. Surinder Monga, General Manager (Ex. R-1), copy of statement of account (Ex. R-2 & Ex. R-3) and photocopy of voucher (Ex. R-4) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> <br /> We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Apart from this, we have considered written arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant and opposite party No. 3.<br /> <br /> Learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 vehementally argued that complaint is not maintainable as it pertains to settlement of accounts. Remedy available to the complainant is to file civil suit for rendition of accounts.<br /> <br /> Mr. N K Jeet, learned counsel for the complainant argued that motor cycle was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No. 3 for Rs. 41,550/-. Down payment of Rs. 18,000/- was made. Balance amount of Rs. 23,550/- was provided by opposite party No. 1 at 0% interest. Complainant was told that loan has no hidden cost as service or file charges. After paying 10 installments totaling Rs. 14,620/- , complainant had enquired about the loan account from opposite party No. 1 and he was shocked to learn that opposite party No. 1 has shown Rs. 29,000/- as principal amount instead of Rs. 23,550/-. It was charging Rs. 19.01% interest instead of 0% . Opposite party No. 1 did not correct the discrepancies and foreclose the loan account. It has violated the Code of Commitment. It has further demanded foreclosure charges of Rs. 818.39 besides charging interest @ 4.49 % on the outstanding principal amount as the complainant wanted to prepay the amount in lump-sum. Opposite parties did not bother to reply the notice sent by him. Opposite party No. 3 has stated in its evidence that opposite party No. 1 has paid Rs. 28,210/- to finance purchase of the vehicle but opposite party No. 1 has shown Rs. 29,000/- as principal amount. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have not taken the trouble of explaining the difference of Rs. 790/- in any manner. Rs. 580/- and Rs. 210/- have been shown as processing fee/charges and other charges respectively without giving their details. Misappropriation of Rs. 790/- has been exposed through reply of opposite party No. 3. Credit Facility Application Form is almost blank and has got no legal sanctity. There is no authorisation from him (complainant) for deducting Rs. 790/-. Opposite party No. 1 is illegally levying foreclosure charges of Rs. 818.39 He further argued that it is a case of deficiency in service and not for rendition of accounts. Opposite party No. 1 has obtained 24 blank signed cheques in advance and has converted them in post dated cheques. Down payment of Rs. 18,000/- made to opposite party No. 3 at the time of purchasing the motor cycle has been entered as Rs. 13,340/- in its books. Rest of the amount of Rs. 4660/- has been misappropriated. Opposite parties have deducted Insurance premium of Rs. 1018/-, Rs. 500/- towards R C security, Rs. 375/- for AMC and Rs. 790/- towards service charges. In this manner, total amount comes to Rs. 4673/-.<br /> <br /> We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments and we feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the opposite parties. Admittedly complainant has availed some loan for the purchase of motor cycle. In the written arguments, it has been alleged that Credit Facility Application Form is almost blank and it has no legal sanctity. Question of legality and validity of this Application Form which has been placed on file by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is in issue. In the relief clause, complainant seeks direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to correct/reconcile his loan account and accept the prepayment without any foreclosure charges. In para No. 11 of the complaint, he avers that opposite parties are bound not to present any further cheque for payment from the date of receiving the notice without settling the loan amount. As per averments in the complaint and the arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant, dispute pertains to accounts between the parties. Bank being the financer does not render any service. Complainant alleges that down payment is Rs. 18,000/- and the balance amount is Rs. 23,550/-. Opposite party No. 3 alleges that down payment was Rs. 13,340/- and the balance payment received from the bank is Rs. 28,210/-. There is dispute concerning rate of interest, service and file charges, processing fee/charges and other charges. Another question for determination is as to whether after payment of 10 installment amount outstanding is Rs. 14,620/- or not and principal amount has been wrongly shown as Rs. 29,000/-. Next point which requires adjudication is as to whether opposite parties can demand foreclosure charges besides interest @4.49% on the outstanding principal amount for foreclosing the account. Facts and circumstances clearly establish the relationship of complainant with the opposite parties as that of borrower and debtor. Dispute pertains to accounts between the parties. Detailed evidence for adjudication of the matter in controversy is required which can be led in civil court. This forum in summary procedure cannot adjudicate these intricate questions involved in this complaint. In such a situation, complaint is not maintainable before this forum because the version and counter-version relate to accounts. In this view of the matter, we get support from the observations of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Aggarwal Dyeing Industries Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and Others 1991 CPJ-341. Hon'ble State Commission of Punjab has also expressed the same view in the case of K.K. Foams Industries and Another Vs. Punjab Financial Corporation & Another 2004(2) JRC-30. Reference can also be made to the authorities Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd., Vs. Himanshu S. Thumar 2005 CTJ-791 (CP)(SCDRC), Vishal Roadways Vs. Economic Traders (Gujarat) Ltd. III(1998) CPJ-9 (NC), M/s. House of Dubary Vs. New Bank of India 1991-CPC-391 (NC) and Kehar Singh Vs. M/s. Satish Kumar Surinder Kumar 1997(I)CPC 589.<br /> <br /> Since this Forum cannot try and adjudicate the complaint in view of the discussion made above, merits of the case are not being touched.<br /> <br /> In the result, complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court for getting his grievances redressed, if so advised and permitted <br /> <br /> by law. <br /> <br /> Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced :<br /> <br /> 12-12-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> <br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> <br /> Member<br /> <br /> `<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> <br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />