Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/146/2017

B.Ramakrishnan, R.Lakshmanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Managers Central Bank of India rep by its Legal Department - Opp.Party(s)

Sridevi, N.Mohan Prasad

07 Jun 2019

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  06.10.2017

                                                                Order pronounced on:  07.06.2019

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL- PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

FRIDAY  THE 07^th  DAY OF JUNE 2019

 

C.C.NO.146/2017

 

1.B.Ramakrishnan,

1,9^th Cross Street,

Mangala  Nagar,

Porur – P.O.,

Chennai – 600 116.

 

2.R.Lakshmanan,

S/o.B.Ramakrishnan,

1, 9^th Cross Street,

Mangala Nagar,

Porur –P.O.

Chennai – 600 116.

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainants

..Vs..

1.The Chief  Manager

Central Bank of India,

No.5/12, Poonamalle Road,

Poonthottam Colony,

Nundambakkam,

Chennai – 600 089.

 

2.Central Bank of India,

Rep by its Legal Department,

Head Office, No.11, 2^nd  Line Beach Road,
Parrys, Chennai – 600 001.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 24.10.2017

Counsel for Complainant                      : Sridevi.N, Mohan Prasad

 

Counsel for Opposite Parties                   : Ex – parte (on 28.11.2017)

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainants to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.92,549/- along with 12% interest to the complainants by the opposite parties  for the excess amount paid and for the fine paid and also to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-  as compensation for humiliation suffered and mental agony with  cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainants approached the 1^st opposite party for the financial help of pursuing the 2^nd complainant’s Master of Science at the Florida International University, Miami, United States of America and requested the 1^st opposite party for an education loan. The same request was accepted by 1^st opposite party and the loan letter was processed on 18.12.2007.  The complainants availed a loan for Rs.15,00,000/- at the rate of interest at 12% per annum on 18.12.2007 and received the loan through way of ‘Demand Draft’ (DD) for the payment of Florida International University’s tuition fees. The 1^st opposite party divided the payment in different parts i.e one traveller’s cheque for USD 4,500/- (conversion rate at Rs.39.91) and another DD for USD 14,290/- (conversion rate at Rs.39.91). The 2^nd complainant received an alarming information that there will be difficulty in continuing his course as the DD for the sum of USD 14,920/- issued by the 1^st opposite party was returned/rejected due to insufficient funds. DD issued by the 1^st opposite party was submitted by the 2^nd complainant at the University during the course orientation.  The DD issued by the 1^st opposite party travels first to the University’s bank and then to the Joint Venture bank of the 1^st opposite party,  a bank named J.P.Morgan Chase’. This J.P.Morgan Chase has accepted the DD and verified   the same with the 1^st opposite party and consequently has rejected the same for insufficient funds as reflected in the accounts summary. The 1^st opposite party is summarized as deficiency in service due to which the registration of the student was delayed and both the complainants were put to strenuous mental agony. The University had charged the student a fine for a sum of USD 914/- in total. It is to be noted that the complainants had to pay such a huge fine amount for no mistake of theirs. The complainants paid this fine from 2^nd complainant’s student loan account for which they had to pay compound interest as well.  There has been rude and evasive replies from the 1^st opposite party  and the complainants have been paying interest for the defaulted DD by the 1^st opposite party.  The borrowed sum of amount for the loan is Rs.15,00,000/- but the loan amount received was only a sum of Rs.13,97,358/-. Total interest for the loan is a sum of Rs.5,06,693/- i.e. including the principal amount and interest repaid sum is calculated to a final sum of Rs.19,04,051/-. The complainants had paid an excess amount of Rs.92,549/-. It is to be further noted that this particular education loan is at the rate of 12% simple interest for the period of 24 months i.e. the course duration and after completion of the course or till the date of employment or 6 months after the course at compound interest of 12% after this holiday period. Thus the complainant has paid a compound interest for the fine amount which has also been deducted from the complainant’s account. The complainants then left with no other option and alternative to seek justice approached the State Legal Service Authority, Madras High Court Campus. The 1^st opposite party appeared before the State Legal Service Authority for a brief period from 22.04.2014 to 11.03.2015 number of hearings out of the total 24 hearings that was conducted in the same. Even during this proceeding the 1^st opposite party was keen only in escaping form the legal liability and was trying to blind ide the state legal service authority officer. The conclusion at the State Legal Service Authority also failed miserably. Hence the complaint.   

2. The complainants had come forward with their respective proof affidavit and documents. Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 were marked on the side of the complainant.

3. The   opposite parties were served notice from this Forum was called absent and they were set ex – parte on 28.11.2017.

          4. The written arguments of the complainants was filed and the oral argument was heard.        

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Is the complaint barred by limitation?

     2. If not, is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

     3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any other relief? If so to what extent?    

6. POINT NO :1 

           The  1^st  complainant  had approached  the 1^st opposite party  for education loan for Rs. 15,00,000/-  for the 2^nd complainant’s Master of Science  study at Florida International  University, Miami, United States of America  and it was processed on 18.12.2007  by the 1^st opposite party. Loan sanction letter is for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- @ 12% per annum. Simple interest during holiday period, compound interest, thereafter with repayment schedule of 60 equated monthly instalments after the holiday period as incorporated in Ex.A1. The Loan amount was divided into two parts, one is traveller’s  cheque for an amount of USD 4,500/- and another DD for USD 14,290/-.  Later DD for a sum of USD 14,920/- issued by 1^st opposite party was returned as “insufficient fund”.  In view of the rejection the 2^nd complainant was charged with a fine for a sum of  USD 914/- in total. The correspondence with respect to the same to the Branch Manager, IBB Branch, Central Bank of India is Ex.A14. There were many correspondences through mail and letter between the complainants and the opposite parties which are also marked as Ex.A2 to Ex.A10.

           07. The contention of the complainant  is that the  University had charged the 2^nd complainant  a fine for  a sum of USD 914/- in view of non-payment of part amount of the fee due to return of DD and also the 2^nd complainant  is fined because of opposite parties negligence  activities, not because of his fault and he paid the fine from his student loan account for which he also paid compound interest. Due to this, registration of the student was delayed and also paid excess amount of Rs.92,549/-. Complainants suffered great loss and mental agony. Therefore the complainants claim over the excess payment made of Rs.92,549/- @ 12% interest  and also Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation.

  08. It is stated in the complaint that the loan was processed on 18.12.2007. The repayment of loan commenced on 31.03.2009 and concluded on 01.10.2012. The borrowed amount was Rs.15,00,000/- and the loan amount received by the complainants  as per his version was only a sum of  Rs.13,97,358/- and the interest as per complaint was Rs.5,06,693/-.  The excess repayment of Rs.92,549/- was claimed with interest by the complainants along with compensation. This complaint was presented on 6.10.2017. The complaint was not filed within two years of alleged default had arisen.

09. The complainants in their complaint have stated 1^st complainant’s approach to legal aid services authority for a period of 22.4.2014 to 11.03.2015 and as per the complainants statement in their complaint, even after the date of internal letter between the banks dated 12.01.2015, the conclusion in legal aid authority also failed. The learned counsel for complainants argued that she waited for the legal aid services to complete and then preferred filing this complaint. The correspondence between the parties will not extend or save the Period of Limitation.  Petition pending before legal aid authority will also not save or extend the Period of Limitation.  After completing the process of legal aid authority also, the complainants has not filed within two years of Limitation Period.

10. The learned counsel for the complainants have submitted decisions of

CANARA BANK

VS

AGNES D’MELLO

IN

(NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION) ( 23 AUGUST 2005)

the appeal arose against the order from Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, wherein the limitation point is discussed. So far as the limitation point is concerned, the respondent in the referred case finally repudiated the claim as submitted by the appellant thereon was on 09.5.1988, the complaint was filed on 29.3.1991 i.e  more than two years. It was admitted because of the reason that before June 1993, no period of Limitation was prescribed under Consumer Protection Act. Section 24 A of Limitation was inserted with effect from 18^th June 1993. Hence two years period could not be applicable to the referred case. But here the situation is entirely different from the referred case and this complaint was filed in the year of 2017. Therefore the  above referred case is not applicable to the present complaint before us.

           11. The last letter from the 1^st opposite party addressed to the Regional Manager, Regional Office, Chennai was dated 12.01.2015 in Ex.A16 their internal letter between the bank is not in the year of 2018 and 2019 as alleged by the complainants and the mere correspondence between the banks internally will not extend the limitation period, even then the complaint was filed before this forum only on 6^th   October 2017. It is admitted by the complainants that the loan was concluded in the month of October 2012 itself in the complaint. Another referred case on the side of the complainants is

HARSH BHARDWAJ

VS

KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN CORPORATION

IN

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T.,

CHANDIGARH (21 JANUARY, 2013)

 

Wherein the complainant prosecuted the case in good faith in the commission where it lacked territorial jurisdiction.  Since the case was filed before a wrong forum, having no Territorial Jurisdiction the period spent by him in the said proceedings was excluded and also when the delay excuse petition was filed, the opposite party had refused to receive the notice. Here in this case  the complaint  was not pending before any court of law or any forum   mistakenly,  in order to exclude the days of delay  and the circumstances and situation vary in the case in hand  from the above quoted and referred case.  Hence   it is not applicable to the  present case in hand.

          12. The complainants have submitted only the above said citations. It is argued on the side of the complainants that opposite party had alone given false advice as to try this forum, that is why they have not come up within limitation period is not substantiated or supported by any proof. Even then, that is not the proper reason for saving the limitation period to file the complaint. In conclusion the complaint is barred by Limitation and hence Complaint fails and deserves to be dismissed accordingly point No.1 is answered.

13.POINT N0.2  

In view of the conclusion in point No.1 as  the complaint is barred by Limitation, the complainant fails and there is no discussion for point no.2.

14. POINT NO.3

The complainants are not entitled to any relief therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.      

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 07^th  day of June 2019.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 18.12.2007                   Loan Sanction Letter

Ex.A2 dated 11.02.2008                   Mail from FIU to complainant

Ex.A3 dated NIL                     Student tuition fee Account Summary from FIU

Ex.A4 dated 22.08.2008                   Letter from 1^st opposite party

Ex.A5 dated NIL                     Student Account Summary from FIU

Ex.A6 dated NIL                     Mail transactions between complainant and FIU

Ex.A7 dated NIL                     Letters and correspondences made by the complainant to 1^st opposite party

Ex.A8 dated 01.11.2011         Certificate from 1^st opposite party

Ex.A9 dated 16.12.2014         Letter from 1^st opposite party to complainant

Ex.A10 dated 25.05.2011       Letter and Acknowledgement from the Banking Ombudsman

Ex.A11 dated 09.04.2015       Letter to District State Services Authority by the complainant

Ex.A12 dated 11.06.2015       Letter from District State Legal Services Authority

Ex.A13 dated 14.01.2008       Account statement of the complainant with the 1^st opposite party Bank.

Ex.A14 dated 06.02.2008       Letter sent to Branch Manager, IBB Branch, Central Bank of India.

Ex.A15 dated 12.06.2008       Letter from Senior Manager, Central Bank of India, IBB Branch to Chief Manager.

Ex.A16 dated 12.01.2015       Letter from Central Bank of India to Regional Office

 

MEMBER – I	PRESIDENT