Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/175/2018

R.Kanthraja s/o Ramappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch manager,Indusind Bank Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao

13 Jun 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON :24/09/2018

               DISPOSED ON:13/06/2019

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

 

CC. NO. 175/2018 DATED:13th JUNE 2019

PRESENT :-         SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH      :   PRESIDENT                                                     B.A., LL.B.,

SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,         :     LADY MEMBER

                             SRI. SHIVAKUMAR.K.N         :     MEMBER

                                      M.Com., LL.B.,

COMPLAINANT/S	R. Kantharaja S/o Ramappa Ajjampurada, Major, Proprietor, Sri Sai Petroleum Service Station Parashurampura Village and Hobli, Near Sarvodaya D.Ed., College, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District.   (Rep by Smt/Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Branch Manager, Indus Ind Bank Limited, 2153, I Floor, Thippeswamy Complex Bank of India Upstairs, JCR Extension Main road, Chitradurga-577501.   2. The Authorized Signatory, Indus Ind Bank limited, Rep., By its Power of Attorney, Having Office at No.116, G.N. Chetty road, T.Nagara, Chennai-600017.   (Rep by Smt/Sri.C.P.Raghavendra,  Advocate for OP No.1 and OP No.2 ex-parte)

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH: PRESIDENT

ORDER

 

The complainant has been filed this complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the opposite parties to direct the OP No.1 to refund the excess amount paid with nominal interest, Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation towards mental agony, loss of time and energy and to grant such other reliefs.

2.     Brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant has obtained loan of Rs.11,40,000/- to purchase the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-1643 having chassis No.MB1A3DYC2ERXK17472 and engine No.EXHZ413150 from the OP on 10.07.2014 agreeing to pay EMI of Rs.34,300/- for 42 equal monthly installments by obtaining signatures on some filled and unfilled papers and assured to receive the EMI vide loan agreement No.KSH00014D from the complainant.  As per the statement of account of the OP Bank dated 10.07.2014 up to 18.05.2018, the complainant has remitted Rs.14,33,332/- towards EMI.  As per the loan agreement, the complainant has to pay only Rs.14,07,330/- to the OP and the OP has furnished zero balance statement to the complainant.  Thereafter, the complainant has approached the OP No.1 and requested to send accurate statement of account to repay the balance due to them, but the OP has not reacted positively and given evasive answers to the complainant.  It is pertinent to mention that, the complainant has paid more than the borrowed loan amount with interest, but for the reasons best known to them, they have asking to give excess amount as against agreed by the complainant.  The OP by suppressing all the material facts, the OP with an ulterior motive to have wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to the complainant to have the possession of the vehicle illegally filed a false and frivolous complaint before the Arbitration Tribunal, the same does not binds on the complainant.  The complainant has paid more than the borrowed loan amount with interest, but the OP intentionally not ready to pay the NOC, it prima-facie shows the deficiency in service, dereliction of duties and unfair trade practice towards the complainant.  The complainant approached the OP to give NOC, but the OP has not reacted positively, which caused the complainant to suffer heavy financial loss, loss of energy and time.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 28.08.2018, when the OP received the complaint through phone and not complied the same, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

   

  3.   After issuance of the notice to the OP No.1, OP No.1 appeared through Sri.C.P. Raghavendra, Advocate and filed their version.  In spite of service of notice, OP No.2 did not appear before this Forum, hence placed ex-parte.    

According to the version filed by OP No.1, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable under C.P Act and the complainant is not a consumer under the OP No.1 and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.  The averments made in para are admitted in part, but the complainant has not paid the EMI within time.  The averments made in para 3 to 5 are denied as false and put to strict proof of the same.  It is true that, on 10.07.2014 the complainant has obtained loan of Rs.11,40,000/- to purchase the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-1643 having chassis No.MB1A3DYC2ERXK17472 and engine No.EXHZ413150 from the OP No.1 by hypothecating the same by agreeing the terms and conditions to pay EMI of Rs.34,300/- for 42 equal monthly installments.  The complainant has not paid the EMI in time and therefore, the OP No.1 have levied overdue charges.  As per the OP No.1, the complainant has to pay EMI of Rs.34,300/- plus overdue charges of Rs.38,472/- in all a sum of Rs.72,772/-, but the complainant has taken a contention that, he has paid excess amount of Rs.26,000/- and asking to repay the said amount and to give NOC, the complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous and the same is liable to be dismissed.  As per the agreement, if any dispute arises, the complainant has to file a case before the Arbitration Tribunal and not before this Forum and therefore, the complaint is to be triable before the Civil Court and hence, the OP has not committed any deficiency of service and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 4. Complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and relied on documents Ex A-1 to A-4 and closed his side.  OP No.1 has examined one Sri. K.B. Guru, Legal Officer as DW-1 and relied on Ex.B-1 document and closed their side. 

5. Heard the arguments.

6.     Now the Points that arise for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:-

Point No.1:-Whether the complainant proves that, the OP No.1 have committed deficiency of service in charging overdue charges to the loan account and entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint?

 

Point No.2:- What order?

 

        7. Our findings on the above points are as follows.

        Point No.1:-Partly Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per the final order.

::REASONS::

 

8. Point No. 1:-It is not in dispute that, the complainant has obtained loan of Rs.11,40,000/- from the OP No.1 for purchasing the vehicle on 10.07.2014 agreeing to pay EMI of Rs.34,300/- in 42 equal monthly installments and the OP No.1 assured to receive the EMI vide loan agreement No.KSH00014D from the complainant.  As per the statement of account dated 10.07.2014 up to 18.05.2018, the complainant has paid Rs.14,33,332/- towards EMI to the OP, but as per the loan agreement, the complainant has to pay only Rs.14,07,330/- to the OP No.1 and the OP No.1 has furnished zero balance statement to the complainant.  Thereafter, the complainant has approached the OP No.1 and requested to send accurate statement of account to repay the balance, but the OP No.1 has not reacted positively and given evasive answers to the complainant.  The complainant has paid more than the borrowed loan amount with interest, but the OP No.1 is asking to give excess amount as against agreed by the complainant by suppressing all the material facts, with an ulterior motive to have wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to the complainant to have the possession of the vehicle illegally and filed a false and frivolous complaint before the Arbitration Tribunal.  The complainant approached the OP No.1 to give NOC, but it has not reacted positively, which caused the complainant to suffer heavy financial loss, loss of energy and time.

 

9.     We have gone through the entire documents filed by both the parties.  There is no dispute that, the complainant has availed loan from the OP No.1 for purchasing the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-16 C-1643 on 10.07.2014 agreeing to repay the said amount in 42 equal installments for Rs.34,300/- each.  Accordingly, the complainant has paid the entire amount to the OP No.1 and also paid the amount of Rs.26,002/- excess.  After collecting the entire amount from the complainant, the OP No.1 has repudiated to give NOC to the complainant.  The Advocate for the OP No.1 addressed his arguments that, it is true that the complainant has obtained the loan from the OP No.1 on 10.07.2014 and repaid the entire loan amount to the OP No.1, but he has paid the amount on different dates every month i.e., the defect committed by the complainant, therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and the complainant is at liberty to approach the Arbitration.  But in this case, the Advocate for complainant addressed his arguments that, the OP No.1 has collected excess amount from the complainant.  After collecting the entire loan, the OP No.1 has not issued the NOC and further put the name of the complainant in CIBIL, which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and unable to obtain loan from any other Bank.  As per the documents, it clearly shows that, the complainant has paid excess amount of Rs.26,002/-.  The OP No.1 has sanctioned the loan on flat interest.  Such being the case, the question of asking the excess amount from the complainant does not arise.  The OP No.1 has fixed the interest up to the last installment also.  Therefore, payment of excess amount does not arise.  But in this case, the complainant has paid the excess amount of Rs.26,002/-, that amount has to be returned to the complainant.  Further it is the bounden duty of the OP No.1 to issue NOC and delete the name of the complainant from the CIBIL list.  Therefore, viewed from any angle, we find that there is a deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1.  Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 held as partly affirmative. 

 

10.   Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein, we pass the following:

 

 

ORDER

 

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby partly allowed.

 

It is ordered that, the OP No.1 is hereby directed to return an amount of Rs.26,002/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization.   

Further, the OP No.1 is ordered to issue NOC to the complainant by removing the name of the complainant from the CIBIL, failing which, the OP No.1 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation to the complainant towards mental agony and loss of time and energy.     

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 is hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. 

Complaint as against OP No.2 is hereby dismissed.

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 

(This order is made with the consent of Members after the correction of the draft on 13/06/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER               MEMBER                 PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:-Complainant by filing affidavit evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP No.1:

DW-1:- K.B. Guru, Legal Officer by filing affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Statement of account dated 06.06.2018
02	Ex-A-2:-	Statement of account dated 07.06.2018
03	Ex-A-3:-	Legal notice dated 28.08.2018
04	Ex.A-4:-	Postal receipt with acknowledgement

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP No.1:

01

Ex-B-1:-

Loan agreement

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER               MEMBER                 PRESIDENT

Rhr.,