DOF.26.5.10

DOO.20.11.10

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

        Present: Sri.K.Gopalan      : President

                             Smt.K.P.Preethakumari   : Member

                             Smt.M.D.Jessy                : Member

Dated this, the 20^th  day of  November   2010

CC.No.152/2010

K.P.Niyas,

“Kasthuri”,

Three Road,

Azhikode.P.O.,

Kannur.                                            Complainant

(Rep. by Adv.T.P.Sabu)

The Manager,

HDFC Bank,

Kannur Branch,

K.V.R.Tower,

Kannur Dist.                                   Opposite party

O R D E R

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member

          This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of `35, 972/- as compensation with cost.

          The case of the complainant is that he had availed a used car loan from opposite party for an amount of `1, 13,000/- on 2.2.07. But the opposite party had disbursed only an amount of

`1, 11,700/- after deducting `1, 300/- as service charge. The EMI of the loan was fixed as `3973/-and the period of loan was for 36 months starting from 7.3.07 to 7.2.10. The complainant was always regular and punctual in paying the EMI and never defaulted in paying the same. The complainant used to pay `4000/- on or before 7^th day of every month and only on one occasion the complainant was unable to pay the amount on 7.8.09 due to Hartal. When the complainant contacted the opposite party, he instructed the complainant to pay installment before 10’o clock on next day to avoid unnecessary penal charges. On 5.1.09, the complainant had paid an amount of `8000/- instead of `4000/- and hence as on 7.8.09 an amount of `4000/- is in the complainant’s credit. On 7.1.10 when the complainant approached the opposite party for closing the loan account by paying the balance amount towards the loan account i.e. only one EMI due. But the opposite party demanded `10000/- for closing the loan account. The opposite party had issued a statement of accounts having full of mistakes by way of certain deductions and penal charges by way of bouncing cheques; when the complainant demanded for account statement. But when the complainant approached the opposite party they did not give sufficient reason or explanation for the same and insulted the complainant in front of other customers by saying that the complainant is a regular defaulter and no need to look into the statements of accounts. So the complainant had issued a letter but the opposite party neither closed the account nor issued any reply and instead of this the opposite party had issued a lawyer notice for paying `9, 478/-. So the complainant was compelled to make payment of

`13, 000/- for closing the account. The complainant had paid

`13, 000/- under protest as he was in urgent need of non objection certificate to remove the hypothecation with RC and to sold the same. The opposite party had issued a statement of account after repeated request which is not tallying with the receipt issued to the complainant. The opposite party had collected the amount more than `10, 972/- in excess. This is due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service of opposite party. So the complainant had suffered so much of mental as well as physical agony for which opposite party is liable. Hence this complaint.

          Upon receiving the complaint Forum had issued notice and the opposite party acknowledged the same. But he was called absent and declared as exparte.

          The main point to be decided in this case is whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.

          The evidence in this case consists of the chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination by PW1 and Exts.A1 to A34.

          The complainant contended that opposite party had collected an excess amount of `10, 972/- from the complainant even though he is a person who had paid EMI’s promptly. In order to prove his case the witness PW1 filed chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents such as 24 cash receipts, letter, postal receipt, acknowledgement cards, lawyer notice, postal receipt, statements of accounts and closure letter are produced.

          Ext.A33 is the statement of account issued by opposite party to the complainant which shows clearly that the complainant had paid EMI from 7.3.07 and up to 8.12.07. The complainant had produced Exts.A1 to A23 receipts issued by the opposite party and as per this receipt the complainant had paid `4000/- as EMI from 5.1.08 to 7.12.09. As per Ext.A12 the complainant had remitted `8000/- on 5.1.09. Ext.A24 is the receipt dt.22.2.10 by which the complainant had remitted `13, 000/-. So the total amount remitted by the complainant as per document is as follows:-

                            Total amount paid             `148730/-

                           Amount as per 36 EMI        `143028/-

                           Excess paid                         `   5702/-

          From the above details as per Ext.A1 to A24 and A33, the complainant had already paid `148730/- instead of `143028/-. From the documents it is seen that the complainant is a person who is paying EMI’s promptly except two instalments. More over from the above stated documents it is clear that the complainant used to pay the EMI by way of cash and not by way of cheque. But  as per Ext.A33 it is seen that the opposite party has charged `450/- each as cheque bouncing charge on 8.7.08, 9.9.08, 8.10.08, 10.12.08 and 8.1.09. But as per Ext.A7,A9,A10,A12 it is seen that the complainant had paid cash towards these EMI’s on 5.7.08, 5.9.08, 3.10.08, 5.1.09 respectively. So it is clear that the opposite party had failed to keep the correct account of down payment and hence there is unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. More over it is seen that the opposite party had received an excess amount of `5702/- from the complainant even though he had paid the EMI correctly and promptly.

          The complainant contended that the opposite party had disbursed only `1, 11,700/- only after deducting `1300/- as service charge. But there is no document before us to prove this contention. But the opposite party had charged excess amount from the complainant even though he is a prompt payee. So we are of the opinion that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party for which he has to compensate the complainant by refunding the amount of `5702/-  along with a compensation of `2000/- and `1000/- as cost  and  the complainant is entitled to receive the same and order passed accordingly.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to refund `5702/-(Rupees Five thousand seven hundred and two only) along with `2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost  of this proceedings to the complainant  within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection act.

                 Sd/-                                     Sd/-                  Sd/

                President                                Member              Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1 to A24.Cash receipts issued by OP

A25.Copy of the letter sent o OP

A26 & 27.Postal receipt and AD card

A28.Lawyer notice issued by OP

A29.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP

A30 & 31.Postal receipt and AD card

A32 & 33. Statement of accounts issued by OP to complainant

A34.Closure letter

Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant(affidavit)

Witness examined for the opposite party: Nil

/forwarded by order/

Senior Superintendent