Date of Filing: 30.11.2019
Date of Order: 26.07.2021
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Smt. P. Kasthuri B.Com, L.L.M., PRESIDENT(FAC)
HON’BLE Shri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER
On this the Monday the 26th day, of July 2021
C.C.No. 585 of 2019
Between
G. Venkat Ratnam S/o Ramulu,
Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business,
R/o: H.No. 6-49, Shivalayam Nagar,
Amangal, Ranga Reddy District.
….Complainant
And
The Legal Manager,
IDFC First Bank Ltd,
S.B.Towers, 2nd Floor,
Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
….Opposite Party
Counsel for the Complainant : Party-In-Person
Counsel for the Opposite party : Mr.P.Ramachandran
O R D E R
(By Shri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER on behalf of the bench)
1 The above complainant has been filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party as such, praying the District Forum to direct the opposite party to close the loan account of the complainant, to award compensation for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-,costs of the litigation for Rs.10,000/-, and such other reliefs as it deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of the complainant are that :
The complainant has obtained loan from the opposite party and could not repay the loan amount as per the schedule. It is stated that the complainant and the opposite party entered OTS scheme dt. 26.03.2019 according to which it is the obligation on the part of the complainant to pay Rs.40,000 on dt. 30.03.2019 and Rs.35,000/- on 30.04.2019. The complainant states that he paid Rs.40,000/- on dt. 23.04.2019 Rs.20,000/- on 28.05.2019 and Rs.15,000/- on dt. 29.05.2019 which was accepted by the opposite party without any objection resulting in the complainant stated to have understood that the total loan amount of Rs.75,000/- was paid and his loan account would be closed, as per the OTS settled amount. But, the agents of the opposite party visited his house and started harassment for collection of the loan amount according to schedule prior to OTS. When it was brought to the notice of the opposite party, he was informed that the payments were not made as per the dates mentioned in the OTS as such he was required to pay as usual forgetting OTS. Hence, the above complaint is filed for grant of reliefs as stated supra.
3. The opposite party filed written version stating that as the complaint paid the amount not as per the dates mentioned in the OTS as such the OTS was not in force. Also it is stated that in the OTS itself it is mentioned that in case payment was not paid as per the OTS settlement, the OTS would stand cancelled. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
4. During the course of enquiry, both the party have filed respective Affidavit of Evidences supported by Ex.A.1 & A.2 and B.1 respectively. Both sides filed Written Arguments and made oral submissions.
5. Heard the complainant and learned counsel for the Opposite Party as well. Perused the material on record. For arrival of just and proper conclusion, the following questions are required to be determined.
5.1 Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade
practice on the part of the opposite party ?
5.2 Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for ?
5.3 If so, to what Extent ?
Answers to the above points:
5.1 The opposite party, in the above said transactions, as settled in OTS scheme, has received total amount of Rs.75,000/- instead of 2 instalments but in 3 instalments of course on different dates. The conditions stipulated in the said OTS are exclusively by the opposite party and with the unblemished intention of the complainant and to get rid of his problem of clearing entire loan amount and to close the loan account permanently , he paid the said total amount of Rs.75,000/-
The opposite party ,even at the time of receiving Rs.40,000/-, subsequent to the scheduled date as per OTS, or even at subsequent receipt of payment of Rs.20,000/- or at the time of Rs.15,000/-, never raised any protest or objection nor informed the complainant, nor sent any letter that he should pay as per liability on the ground that the OTS scheme is cancelled, because of nonpayment of required amount as per scheduled dates in OTS agreement. Stipulating conditions in the OTS and not expressly protesting at the time of receipt of amounts in 3 installments, failing as to sending any letter demanding that the complainant needs to pay further in accordance with the loan payment schedule. Keeping the complainant at dark, playing tricks, adopting unfair trade practice and committing deficiency in service demanding for further payment, is not acceptable. There is no fair play in the above transactions on the part of the Opposite Party. Certainly, sending its agents to the complainant’s residence and exerting pressure or causing mental torture for further payment by the complainant, after receipt of entire OTS payment of Rs.75,000/- without any protest at the time of payment, undoubtedly amounts to Unfair trade practice and commission of deficiency in service.
The complainant succeeded in proving his case against the opposite party. Under the stated circumstances, the opposite party is liable for compensation for causing mental torture etc., The complainant is entitled to reliefs as mentioned hereunder.
Ex.A.1 proves the Account statement of the complainant and Ex.A.2 is the OTS, dt.26.3.2019, which corroborates the amount of Rs.75,000/- to be paid by the complainant. Admitted fact is that the said amount has been received by the opposite party. The dispute relates only that the said amount which has been paid subsequent to the agreed dates. As no protest or no objection has been raised by the opposite party when such payments were received and subsequent demand for further payment by the complainant is unreasonable. Tricks played by the opposite party on the innocent complainant is unpardonable. As such, under the stated circumstances, the opposite party are liable for their actions and complainant is entitled to claims as granted hereunder.
5.2. Based on our above discussion and findings, that the opposite party is liable for his actions and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs, as granted infra.
5.3 In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite party is hereby directed to :
i. close the loan account of the complainant i.e.5575755 of complainant.
ii. pay to the complainant for an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards pain, suffering and mental agony.
iii. pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
Time for compliance : 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. In default, the above granted amount, except costs, shall carry interest @ 12% p.a.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by him, pronounced by us on this the 26th day of July, 2021.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
NIL
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1 – Copy of Bank Account Statement
Ex.A2 – Copy of One time settlement letter dt. 26.03.2019.
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite party :
Ex.B1 - Copy of Foreclosure letter dt. 27.01.2020.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
