BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.189 of 2015
Date of Instt. 06.05.2015
Date of Decision :02.11.2015
Anoop Sharma son of Rattan Lal Sharma R/o Vikas Nagar, Tehsil Phagwara District Kapurthala.
..........Complainant Versus
1. The Branch Manager, Loans & Advances, Indusind Bank Ltd., Police Lines, Alfa Estate, 4th Floor, Jalandhar.
2. The Branch Manager, Indusind Bank, GT Road, Phagwara District Kapurthala.
3. Indusind Bank through its Managing Director & CEO Mr.Romesh Sobti having its registered office at 8th Floor, Tower-1, One India Bulls Centre, Jupiter Mills Compound, 841, S.B.Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai-400013.
.........Opposite parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Harminder Syal Adv., counsel for complainant.
Sh.KAS Rana Adv., counsel for opposite parties.
Order
J.S.Bhatia (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant approached opposite party No.2 for borrowing loan for purchase of Yamaha R-15 motorbike. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 approved the loan application of the complainant and disbursed an amount of Rs.92,000/- to him for purchase of motorbike. The value of the bike as per invoice was Rs.1,14,632/-. Out of the said amount complainant paid Rs.22,632/- towards margin money and got financed the aforesaid motorbike through the opposite parties under contract No.PJP02050H dated 30.11.2013. The motorbike Yamaha R-15 aforementioned bears RC No.PB-09U-3708, Engine No.1CK4013275, Chassis No.ME11CK04 AD2013305. The same was hypothecated in favour of opposite party. The said fact of hypothecation finds mention on the RC of the motorbike which is in the name of the complainant. As per the terms of the contract entered into between the complainant and opposite parties, complainant was under obligation to make the payment by equal monthly installments of Rs.4080/- for the agreed period of loan of thirty months. Instead of continuing with the agreed period of loan, complainant chose to make the entire payment outstanding in his loan account and accordingly on 30.12.2013 deposited Rs.90,000/- in his loan account vide acknowledgment slip bearing Sr.No.AP3514062. The said amount was deposited with opposite party No.1 at Phagwara through their employee Hardeep Singh during the regular course of business of the bank. The said acknowledgment slip vide which amount of Rs.90,000/- has been paid by the complainant to the opposite party No.2 bears the signatures of the bank official namely Hardeep Singh. The copy thereof is enclosed. Inspite of deposit of Rs.90,000/- in the loan account by complainant against the aforesaid receipt, opposite parties failed to give the credit of said amount to the complainant and had not issued No Objection Certificate in his favour in respect of the financed vehicle to enable the complainant to get the charge of hypothecation cleared from the registration authorities. Complainant had approached the opposite parties No.1 & 2 on number of occasions with a request to issue him No Objection Certificate in order to remove the entry of hypothecation from the RC of the motorcycle but the opposite parties had withheld the No Objection Certificate and also failed to provide him loan clearance certificate illegally and unlawfully on the plea that their employee Hardeep Singh after having received amount on behalf of the opposite parties from various customers of the bank has eloped with cash. Thus on account of the said fact all those customers who had dealt with the bank through Hardeep Singh, have not been granted credit in respect of the amount paid to Hardeep Singh. Similarly the loan case of the present complainant has not been closed down by the bank and no credit to him for the amount of Rs.90,000/- has been granted. Inspite of having received the amount of Rs.90,000/- from the complainant, the opposite party No.2 is still presenting the post dated cheques in the account of the complainant though there is no legal liability on behalf of the complainant to pay/discharge towards the opposite parties. On such like averments alleging deficiency in service, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to adjust the amount of Rs.90,000/- in his loan account and issue him NOC in respect of the above said motorbike and further return all the post dated cheques. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply raising preliminary objections regarding want of cause of action, jurisdiction in view of arbitration clause, concealment of material facts etc. They further pleaded that the true fact of the case is that the complainant had entered into loan agreement vide contract No.PJP02050H with the opposite parties with respect to the purchase of Yamaha motorcycle and as per loan agreement executed between the parties, the finance amount is Rs.92,000/-, interest charges of Rs.30,400/- total amounting Rs.1,22,400/- which the complainant agreed to repay to the opposite party in thirty equated monthly installments with effect from 30.11.2013 to 21.2.2016. However, right from the beginning the cheque bearing No.868835 of Rs.4080/- dated 21.12.2013 issued by the complainant was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and thereafter also other cheques issued by the complainant had been dishonoured from time to time. However the claim of the complainant having deposited an amount of Rs.90,000/- on 30.12.2013 to bank official Hardeep Singh is wrong and concocted story. The complainant never deposited the said amount with the above said Hardeep Singh. Moreover the claim of the complainant having deposited a sum of Rs.90,000/- on 30.12.2013 to the above said person Hardeep Singh is falsified by the fact that the complainant had deposited Rs.4550/- on 16.1.2014 & Rs.3250/- on 23.1.2014, Rs.1350/- again on the said date, Rs.4080/- on 28.2.2014, Rs.4520/- on 25.3.2014 with the opposite parties. It is crystal clear that if at all complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.90,000/- why there was a necessity for him to pay the above mentioned cash payments to the opposite parties towards repayment of the loan dues. The complainant has raised such a false allegation only to deprive and defeat the legitimate claim of opposite parties and thus, on this sole ground itself the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. They denied other material averments of the complainant.
3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed evidence.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.Opo5 and closed evidence.
5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties and further gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of complainant.
6. So far as jurisdiction of this Forum is concerned, in preliminary objection No.3, the opposite parties have pleaded that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as there is arbitration clause in the loan agreement executed between the parties and further complainant has also made allegations that opposite parties committed a fraud and cheating with him and this scope is beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum. Arbitration clause in no way oust the jurisdiction of this Forum. The remedy provided under the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. Now it is well established that the Forum has power and jurisdiction to decide complicated question of facts including fraud and cheating etc. So far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the opposite parties have not taken any specific objection in this regard. The complainant has impleaded Loan &Advances branch of bank situated at Jalandhar and in their written reply, the opposite parties have not specifically denied that the Loan & Advances branch has nothing to do with the sanctioning of loan in question. Moreover FIR Ex.C7 was lodged against the accused Hardeep Singh by the area officer of opposite party, Jalandhar. This fact is evident from the column No.6 of the FIR Ex.C7. The reply to legal notice Ex.C4 was also sent by Jalandhar branch. So from the above mentioned facts it is evident that some part of cause of action has also arisen to the complainant at Jalandhar where opposite party No.1 branch is situated. So in our opinion, this Forum has jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.
7. Now, the main question which falls for determination is, whether the complainant has deposited Rs.90,000/- with Hardeep Singh, an employee of the opposite party bank vide acknowledgment slip Ex.C3 as prepayment of the entire loan amount?
8. Ex.C3 is acknowledgment slip and not cash deposit receipt. Normal cash deposit receipt is Ex.OP4 which has been produced by the opposite parties. Further acknowledgment slip is not bearing any stamp of the opposite party bank. Ex.OP1 is loan agreement in respect of the loan taken by the complainant. It is not understandable as to why after depositing the one installment, the complainant chose to deposit the entire remaining outstanding amount of Rs.90,000/-. It is not shown by complainant if he ever gave any application to the opposite party bank for prepayment of the loan amount and the exact amount due towards him as on 30.12.2013. Counsel for the opposite parties contended that in fact Hardeep Singh had received certain payments from the customers but the same were not deposited by him in the bank and has absconded with the amount. He further contended that taking advantage of this situation, the complainant has manipulated the acknowledgment slip Ex.C3 regarding deposit of Rs.90,000/- with said Hardeep Singh. We have carefully considered this contention advanced by learned counsel for the opposite parties. As already observed above, the loan agreement is dated 29.10.2013 and according to the complainant after paying one installment, he decided to pay entire remaining amount and paid Rs.90,000/- to the said Hardeep Singh who issued acknowledgment receipt Ex.C3. Firstly, it is improbable that after making payment of just one installment, the complainant paid the entire remaining amount of Rs.90,000/- vide acknowledgment slip dated 30.12.2013 Ex.C3. This receipt does not bear stamp of opposite party bank. Moreover, it is not a cash deposit receipt. In case the complainant had paid entire remaining loan amount vide above said acknowledgment slip Ex.C3 which is dated 30.12.2013 then why he made payment of some of the installments subsequently. Ex.OP2 is statement of account in respect of the loan account of the complainant and from the perusal of the same it is evident that complainant deposited Rs.4550/- on 16.1.2014, Rs.3250/- on 23.1.2014 and Rs.1350/- again on the said date i.e 23.1.2014. He also deposited Rs.4080/- on 28.2.2014 and further Rs.4520/- on 25.3.2014. In case complainant had paid the entire remaining amount to Hardeep Singh vide acknowledgment slip Ex.C3 then there was no need for him to make the above said payments subsequently. The fact that subsequently the complainant continued to deposit the above said amount on different dates in cash towards his loan account clearly proves that he has not deposited Rs.90,000/- as prepayment of the entire outstanding loan amount with the Hardeep Singh, an employee of the opposite party bank vide acknowledgment slip Ex.C3. Counsel for the complainant contended that there is an admission of the opposite party bank regarding payment of Rs.90,000/- by the complainant to Hardeep Singh while lodging FIR Ex.C7. We have carefully considered this contention advanced by learned counsel for the complainant. In the FIR the complainant (bank) has simply mentioned above the complaints received from various customers and there is no admission of any sort on its part. Further according to the complainant he deposited the entire remaining amount on 30.12.2013 vide acknowledgment slip Ex.C3 but he served legal notice Ex.C4 on 8.1.2015 and further wrote one letter Ex.C6 on which postal receipts dated 5.1.2015 are affixed. It is not shown by the complainant that if he has paid the entire loan amount on 30.12.2013 then before 5.1.2015 if he ever wrote any letter to the opposite party bank alleging entire payment and demanding NOC from it. In case the complainant had paid entire remaining amount on 30.12.2013 then he would not have remained silent till 5.1.2015. The cumulative effect of the above stated circumstances is that the complainant has failed to prove the payment of Rs.90,000/- vide acknowledgment slip Ex.C3.
9. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia
02.11.2015 Member Member President
