Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

39/2010

L.Saravanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Hong Kong Shangai bank Corp.Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

J.Anand

22 Jun 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 29.01.2011

                                                                          Date of Order : 22.06.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.39 /2010

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE 2018

                                 

L. Saravanan,

S/o. Mr. S. Loganathan,

No.428, II Floor,

Kolaperumal Scholl Street,

Arumbakkam,

Chennai – 600 106.                                                     .. Complainant.                                                       

 

   ..Versus..

 

1. The Hongkong and Shanghai

Banking Corporation Limited,

Rep. by its Chairman cum Managing Director,

Area Management Office,

Post Box No.128,

No.52/60, Mahatma Gandhi Road,

Mumbai – 400 001.

 

2.  The Hongkong and Shanghai

Banking Corporation Limited,

Rep. by its Manager,

No.76, Cathedral Road,

Chennai – 600 086.

 

3. The Hongkong and Shanghai

Banking Corporation Limited,

Rep. by its Manager,

R.K. Salai Branch,

Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,

Opp. YELLOW PAGES,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.                                              ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant         :  M/s. S. Xavier Felix & others

Counsel for Opposite parties  :  M/s. Mothilal & others

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for damages for loss, injury, stress, hardship, mental agony, loss of reputation and deficiency in service with cost of the complaint.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant availed a personal loan of Rs.1,91,000/- vide loan a/c No.042-049072-872 on 13.01.2007. It should be repayable through 48 equal monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.5,506/- from 10.02.2007.    At the time of availing the loan, the complainant gave consent to clear the EMI through auto debit facility (ECS clearance) from the savings bank a/c stands in his name with Karur Vysa  Bank Ltd., Chennai Main Branch and two undated blank cheques bearing Nos.149925 & 149926 duly signed by the complainant towards security.  The opposite parties failed and neglected to present the ECS clearance for several months and presented all ECS on one day and was returned as ‘insufficient fund’.  Thereafter, the complainant preclosed the loan by paying a sum of Rs.1,60,579.12 on 25.09.2008 and settled the loan a/c.   The opposite parties have also, issued suitable receipt and informed the complainant that the security cheques also duly cancelled.  Thereafter, the opposite parties on 02.02.2009, through ECS instrument No.706058 debited a sum of Rs.5,506/- wrongfully which was returned with an endorsement ‘insufficient fund’ and debited a sum of Rs.84.27 towards cheque return charges. Hence the complainant issued notice dated:29.06.2009 to the opposite parties for which, an evasive reply sent by the opposite parties.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2.     The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite parties state that at the request of the complainant, EMI collected through ECS.  On the request of the complainant, vide communication dated:22.09.2008 regarding pre-closure, ECS was not presented.   The complainant also pre-closed the personal loan on 25.09.2008 and the complainant issued letter dated:11.12.2008 to the opposite parties was duly acknowledged.   On 02.02.2009, ECS was attempted for the EMI amount of Rs.5,506/- which was dishonoured resulting debit of Rs.84.27 happened. On knowledge of the same, the opposite parties, keeping its high sense of fair play, integrity and excellent customer service in mind, refunded the above sum of Rs.84.27 to the complainant vide Demand Draft No. 321184.  Further the opposite parties state that there is no scope for mental agony or harassment to the complainant and the claim of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- is imaginary.    Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties filed and no documents filed and marked on the side of the opposite parties.

4.     The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant is entitled Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for damages for loss, injury, stress, hardship, mental agony, loss of reputation and deficiency in service with cost as prayed for?

On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the opposite  parties Counsel.   Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc. Admittedly, the complainant availed a personal loan of Rs.1,91,000/- vide loan a/c No.042-049072-872 on 13.01.2007. It should be repayable through 48 equal monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.5,506/- from 10.02.2007.    At the time of availing the loan, the complainant gave consent to clear the EMI through auto debit facility (ECS clearance) from the savings bank a/c stands in his name with Karur Vysa  Bank Ltd., Chennai Main Branch and two undated blank cheques bearing Nos.149925 & 149926 duly signed by the complainant towards security.  The opposite parties failed and neglected to present the ECS clearance for several months  and presented all ECS on one day and was returned as ‘insufficient fund’ proves the deficiency in service.  Thereafter, the complainant preclosed the loan by paying a sum of Rs.1,60,579.12 on 25.09.2008 and settled the loan a/c as per Ex.A5.   The opposite parties have also, issued suitable receipt as per Ex.A6 and informed that the security cheques also duly cancelled vide Ex.A8.  Thereafter, the opposite parties on 02.02.2009, through ECS instrument No.706058 debited a sum of Rs.5,506/- as per Ex.A9 wrongfully which was returned with an endorsement insufficient fund and debited a sum of Rs.84.27 towards cheque return charges. Hence the complainant issued notice dated:29.06.2009 as per Ex.A10 to the opposite parties for which, an evasive reply was sent by the opposite parties as per Ex.A12.  Thereafter, after repeated requests and demands the opposite parties, turned deaf ears and refunded the amount of Rs.84.27/- is admitted proves the deficiency in service.   

5.     The contention of the opposite parties is that at the request of the complainant, EMI collected through ECS.  On the request of the complainant, vide communication dated:22.09.2008 regarding pre-closure, ECS was not presented.   The complainant also pre-closed the personal loan on 25.09.2008 and the complainant issued letter dated:11.12.2008 to the opposite parties was duly acknowledged.   On 02.02.2009, ECS was attempted for the EMI amount of Rs.5,506/- which was dishonoured resulting debit of Rs.84.27 happened. On knowledge of the same, the opposite parties, keeping its high sense of fair play, integrity and excellent customer service in mind, refunded the above sum of Rs.84.27 to the complainant vide Demand Draft No. 321184 as per Ex.A14.  But knowing fully well, that the opposite parties has not properly collected the EMI through ECS every time, compelled the complainant to preclose the loan on 25.09.2008 and thereafter, applying ECS clearance on 02.02.2009 and attempted to collect EMI proves the deficiency in service.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that there is no scope for mental agony or harassment to the complainant and the claim of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- is imaginary.  But it is apparently seen that after closure of loan, and after issuing legal notice alone the opposite parties refunded the cheque bounce charges on 31.10.2009 proves deficiency in service.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

  In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above amounts shall be payable  within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 22^nd  day of June 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1		Copy of Amortization Schedule issued by the opposite parties bank
Ex.A2	22.09.2008	Copy of communication issue by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A3	25.09.2008	Copy of Communication issued by the opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A4	25.09.2008	Copy of Communication issued by the opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A5	25.09.2008	Copy of demand draft bearing No.074861
Ex.A6	25.09.2008	Copy receipt issued by the opposite party
Ex.A7	11.12.2008	Copy of communication issued by the opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A8	15.12.2008	Copy of communication issued by the opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A9		Copy of the saving bank statement of the complainant
Ex.A10	29.06.2009	Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant’s Counsel to the opposite parties
Ex.A11		Copy of acknowledgement cards
Ex.A12	18.07.2009	Copy of reply issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A13	05.11.2009	Copy of reply issued by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A14	31.10.2009	Copy of bankers cheque issued by the opposite party to the complainant

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT