IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.Ashok Kumar J.Dhole<br /> B.A(Hons), LL.B - President<br /> <br /> 2. Smt.M.Mahadevi<br /> M.Sc., M.Ed., -Member<br /> <br /> 3. G.V.Balasubramanya<br /> B.E., LL.M - Member<br /> <br /> CC 190/06 DATED 23-08-2006<br /> <br /> Complainant V.Sukumar,<br /> S/o Late K.Venkatasubbarao,<br /> No.197, 2nd Stage, 2nd Main, 2nd Stage, Mysore.<br /> (By B.D.Pradeep, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> <br /> Opposite Party The Manager, CITI Bank, Card Member Services, P.O. Box 4830, Anna Salai Post Office, Chenni.<br /> (EXPARTE)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 30-06-2006<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : -<br /> Date of order : 23-08-2006<br /> Duration of Proceeding : -<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member,<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has a credit card issued by the Opposite Party. He had borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the Opposite Party in February, 2004. The transaction carried out over phone under the scheme “Pay lite” allowed repayment at the EMI of Rs.7,032/- over a period of 36 months.<br /> 2. The complainant says that after the payment of a few EMIs, he was informed by an executive of the Opposite Party bank that he was required to pay only Rs.6,841/- per month. Hence, he started paying the said amount and paid the next 12 installments totaling to around Rs.83,620/-. Thereafter, he wanted to close the loan and accordingly approached the Opposite Party over phone to know the amount he was required to pay. He was told that he would have to pay Rs.1,42,848/- towards preclosure and paid it vide cheque No.0444818 dated 8-2-2005. The cheque was encashed. But the Opposite Party sent two statements claiming two more installments of Rs.13,682 to Rs.21,000/- towards service tax, service charge and interest. The complainant says that this claim is illegal. He sent several letters to the Opposite Party, but received only one reply stating that the loan was preclosed only on 28-4-2005 and as such they are unable to reverse the charges. It is the case of the complainant that when the preclosure cheque was encashed in February, 2005 itself, the Opposite Party can not claim that the preclosure intimation was received by them only in April, 2005.<br /> 3. The Opposite Party, thereafter, wrote a letter to the complainant in December, 2005 regretting the inconvenience caused and allowed Rs.10,873.99 as a service gesture by reversing the charges. However, the Opposite Party continues to demand Rs.27,826.71 which amount the complainant says he is not liable to pay. It is alleged that executives of the Opposite Party bank have been making frequent calls to the complainant for payment of the balance, thus irritating him. Hence, this complaint.<br /> 4. The complainant has prayed that direction be issued to the Opposite Party to issue a “No due certificate” for the loan preclosed. He, also wants damages of Rs.50,000/-.<br /> 5. The Opposite Party has received the notice sent from the Forum but failed to turn up on the appointed day and hence he was placed ex-parte. Therefore, only one point arises for our consideration as under:-<br /> 6. Whether the complainant proves that the Opposite Party has rendered deficient service by making excessive claims despite closure of the loan?<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. The complainant has produced 13 statements issued by the Opposite Party. He has, also, produced a few letters written by him to the Opposite Party and the 2 replies received by him. He has said that he closed the loan by issuing the cheque dated 8.2.2005. From the statement dated 23-02-05 it is clear that the amount of Rs.1,42,848/- was appropriated on 10-02-05. However, it appears it was not adjusted towards preclosure of the loan as it has been shown as credit balance in the statement. The credit balance has been carried forward in the statement dated 25-03-05. Hence, it is evident that the loan was not closed on receipt of the above payment, as EMI of Rs.6,841/- has been claimed in the statement. This, was repeated in the next statement dated 25-4-05, also. However, the next statement does not claim this amount. Hence, the claim of two installments of Rs.6,841/- in the months of March and April, 2005 are contrary to the statement of February, 2005 which reflects the receipt of preclosure amount of Rs.1,42,848/-. The claim is, also, contrary to the contents of the Opposite Party’s letter dated 24-6-2005 wherein it is stated that the intimation of the preclosure was received by them in April, 2005 as the money had been appropriated by them in February, 2005 itself. Nevertheless, the Opposite Party made amends to this lapse by reversing the claim. As can be seen from the letter dated 02.12.2005 an amount totaling to Rs.10,873.99 was reversed. This is as against their earlier claim of Rs.13,682/- (Rs.6,841/2 claimed in the statements for March and April, 2005) made by them. Hence, the complainant has to get deduction of Rs.2,808.01 (Rs.13,682 – Rs.10,873.99). Other allegations of excess claim are unsubstantiated. It is seen from the statement dated 24.07.2006 that the Complainant is due to the Opposite Party Rs.32,218.84. If Rs.2,808.01 is deduced from this claim, the injustice would be mitigated. As this has not been done we answer the point partly in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following Order.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Complaint is allowed in part.<br /> 2. The Opposite Party is directed to give deduction of Rs.2,808/- in the statement for the month of October, 2006. If the Opposite Party fails to do, so then the Complainant is entitled to receive this amount with interest at 10% p.a. thereafter, until the date of payment. <br /> 3. The Opposite Party shall pay the Complainant cost of Rs.500/-.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to both parties according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her/him, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open court on this the day 23rd August 2006)<br /> <br /> <br /> (Ashok Kumar J.Dhole)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (M.Mahadevi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (G.V.Balasubramanya)<br /> Member<br />