CC Filed on 26.05.2011

         Disposed on 17.12.2011

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.

Dated: 17^th  day of December 2011

PRESENT:

                        HONORABLE T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH,  President.

  HONORABLE T.NAGARAJA,  Member.

       HONORABLE K.G.SHANTALA,  Member.

---

Consumer Complaint No. 135/2011

Between:

ORDER

This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for recovery of Rs.3,279/- with interest for 08 years amounting to Rs.3,500/-, traveling expenses incurred for 10 trips made to Opposite Party  office in Bangalore, legal expenses and traveling expenses, costs at Rs.5,000/- in all an amount of Rs.10,279/-.

       2.  The complainant allegation is that on 21.04.1999 he entered into hire purchase agreement with Opposite Party in respect of two-wheeler viz. product No. 1701 TVS XL customer No. 14350.   The hire purchase agreement was for Rs.16,560/- including interest to be repaid in 30 EMI of Rs.552/- which was to be deducted from the complainant’s monthly salary by the Pay Drawing Officer and was to be remitted to Opposite Party towards the hire purchase loan.    The complainant grievance is that although only 30 EMI was to be deducted and remitted to Opposite Party, there were 36 monthly deductions and remittances to Opposite Party towards the loan account of the complainant.   That the actual loan amount was Rs.16,560/- together with interest, but the total deduction was for Rs.19,839/- and inspite of the loan being cleared in 2003, the Opposite Party has not returned the excess amount paid towards the loan since 2003.   The complainant’s further allegation is that on 30.05.2009, he approached the Opposite Party office at Bangalore and requested orally and in writing for refund of the excess amount paid.    He visited Opposite Party office at Bangalore, but Opposite Party did not give suitable reply.   The Opposite Party kept evading to refund the excess amount of Rs.3,279/- on one pretext or the other and thereby caused mental harassment to the complainant and wasted his valuable time.   Therefore the complainant was compelled to file the above complaint seeking justice.

            3. On service of notice, the Opposite Party appeared through Counsel and filed version admitting the hire-purchase agreement between complainant and Opposite Party but denied that Opposite Party was liable to return the excess amount of Rs.3,279/- paid by the complainant (through monthly salary deduction).    The Opposite Party also denied that complainant had made requests for refund of Rs.3,279/- and that Opposite Party had been postponing to refund the same on some pretext or the other that the complainant had incurred heavy expenditure in this regard.    The Opposite Party further contended that the claim of the complainant was hopelessly barred by time as alleged excess payment was made in 2003 and the complainant was putting forward his claim in the year 2011 therefore the complaint was liable to be dismissed as barred by time, there is no cause of action and the one alleged was non-existing one.

            4. From the averments made by the complainant and the Opposite Party, the affidavits filed by the parties and the documents produced, the points that arise for consideration are:

Point No.1:  Whether the complaint is barred by time?

Point No.2:   Whether there is deficiency in service on

                     the part of OP?

Point No.3:  To what order?

            5.  Our findings to these points are as hereunder:

1.      Affirmative

2.      Affirmative

3.      As per final order.

R E A S O N S

6. POINT No.1: The complainant has filed several documents along with the complaint.   These documents have not been denied by the Opposite Party.   The contents (entries) in the documents are also not denied by the Opposite Party.   From the receipt voucher and ledger extract (computerized version) pertaining to hire-purchase, it can be inferred that the loan commenced from April 1999 and would close in October 2001 i.e. after payment of 30^th EMI of Rs.552/-.   The statement of loan account reveals that there are 36 credit entries i.e. 06 additional entries pertaining to November 2001, December 2001, January 2002 to April 2002.   The credit entries for November 2001 upto March 2002 are of Rs.552/- for each month and that of April 2002 is Rs.519/-.    These credit entries total upto Rs.3,279/- and this is the subject matter of claim in dispute.    The hire purchase agreement together with interest was for Rs.16,560/- and the ledger extract shows that this amount was satisfied in October 2001 and the amount of Rs.3,279/- paid in excess is still in the loan account of the complainant and the payment has been withheld till now.  As the loan recovery was through salary deduction, the complainant would have no occasion to detect the excess payment without the co-operation of Opposite Party.   As the Opposite Party is still due for payment of Rs.3,279/- the cause of action has not run out but is still existing.    As this amount is not redundant but payable to the complainant, the complaint is not barred by time.  

7. POINT No.2:  Since Point No.1 is held in affirmative, the next point for consideration is whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party.   As per the statement of loan account, the 30^th EMI fell due in October 2001 and on payment of the same through salary deduction, the Opposite Party ought to have closed the loan account and issued ownership certificate / clearance certificate immediately.    The Opposite Party failed to do so and showed gross negligence by not issuing the ownership certificate / clearance certificate until August 2003.    There was delay of 22 months in issuing the said clearance certificate.   While issuing the said clearance certificate, the Opposite Party did not verify the ledger extract.  Had the Opposite Party shown diligence, the excess payment received and held in the loan account would have come to light.   The Opposite Party simply mentioned that all the dues are cleared and no further salary deduction to be made with effect from 27.08.2003.   The Opposite Party ought to have issued clearance certificate in October 2001 and taken necessary steps to stop further salary deduction with effect from November 2001.   Failure on the part of Opposite Party to do anything in this regard is nothing but deficiency of service.    Secondly the clearance certificate issued by Opposite Party dated 27.08.2003 does not mention a word about the excess payments received towards the loan account which is again gross negligence.       The hire purchase loan recovery was through deduction of monthly salary of the complainant.   As such the complainant had no occasion to verify the loan account extract from time to time and detect the excess payments made towards the loan account.    The Head Master of the School in which the complainant is employed, wrote a letter to the Opposite Party on 30.05.2009 regarding the error committed and excess amount of Rs.3,279/-  paid towards the loan account by deducting from monthly salary of the complainant.   But the Opposite Party has not responded to this letter or the oral and written requests of the complainant, which also amounts to deficiency in service.

8. POINT No.3:  Since Point Nos.1 & 2 are held in affirmative, we pass the following:

O R D E R

The complaint is allowed.   The Opposite Party shall pay Rs.3,279/- with interest at the rate of 06% p.a. from April 2002 till the date of payment.    This order is to be complied within 30 days from the date of this order.  

            Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 17^th  day of December 2011.

T. NAGARAJA                        K.G.SHANTALA          T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH  

   MEMBER                                 MEMBER                              PRESIDENT