Karnataka

Kolar

CC/100/2023

Thippanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Nagesh - Opp.Party(s)

29 Aug 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing: 03/06/2023

Date of Order: 29/08/2023

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

 

Dated:29th DAY OF AUGUST 2023

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:100/2023

Sri. N. Thippanna.

S/o. Late. Narasimhappa,

Aged about 35 years,

R/at. Bayapalli Village,

R. Thimmasandra Post,

Aarikunte Panchayat,

Ronuru Hobli,

Srinivasapur Taluk,

Kolar District.

(Rep.In-Person)                                                  ….  Complainant.

 

                                                                                                                - V/s -

  1. The Manager, Nagesh,
  2. R. Manjunath.

Kolar Doomlight Circle,

INDUS IND Bank,

Consumer Finance Division,

Kolar.

 (Rep. by S.K. Manjunath, Advocate)                   ….Opposite Parties.                                

  

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

  1. That the complainant In-person filed this complaint alleging that the Ops wrongfully claiming the amount from him without considering his previous EMIs paid and prays to pass orders in accordance with law.

 

  1. The facts in brief is that, the complainant in order to purchase the motor bike bearing No.IND KA07EF2945 complainant obtained loan from the Ops by paying the down payment of Rs.20,500/-.  It is stated that, he was regularly paying the monthly EMIs on 30th every month to an extent of Rs.3,074/- per EMIs.  Further stated that, he has to pay total 23 EMIs but complainant states that, he had paid only 12 EMIs towards loan amount but the Ops demanding the complainant that he had not paid balance of 3 EMIs and further stated that, though he paid the amount towards 3 EMIs but the Ops did not considered his paid 3 EMI’S for the said payment.  Hence this complaint.

 

  1. On issuance of notice Ops appeared through their counsel and to resist the claim of the complainant but Op did not choose to file his version. Further the order sheet discloses that despite sufficient opportunity OP failed to file his version and hence version of OP taken has not filed.  Further when the matter is posted for arguments and the complainant filed his written arguments and the same is taken on record.

 

  1. In order to prove the case of the complainant and the complainant filed his affidavit evidence but due to non filing of version of OP did not filed the affidavit evidence, however OP filed his written arguments.

 

  1. On the basis of the available pleadings on record the following points will do arise for out consideration.

Heard the arguments.

1. Whether the complainant proves that Op is deficient in his service?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint?

3.  What Order?

 

Our answers to the above points are as follows.

POINT NO. (1):-   In the affirmative.

POINT NO. (2):-   In the affirmative.

POINT NO. (3):-   As per the final order

                            for the following.

 

REASONS

  1. POINT No (1) :-   On over all perusal of the case of the complainant and the evidence placed on record it is the only allegation from the side of the complainant is that, though he had taken the loan from the Ops in order to purchase the motor bike bearing No. IND KA07EF2945 by contributing matching amount of Rs.20,500/-.  Further the complainant agreed to repay the loan amount within 23 EMIs but he had paid 12 EMIs only and the specific allegation is that out of the 12 EMIs Ops failed to acknowledge the amount paid towards 3 EMIs in question.  Whereas the Ops in their written arguments admitting the loan transactions of the EMIs per month and it is vehemently canvassed that the complainant himself default in paying the EMIs towards repayment of loan amount and ultimately his loan account becomes NPA.  Further canvassed that the vehicle is already hypothecated to the name of the bank.  Further canvassed that complainant filed false complaint before the Jurisdictional police against the bank officials for harassing.  Ultimately Ops in their arguments pray to dismiss the complaint.

 

  1. It is worth to note that, the burden is always lies on the complainant to prove no deficiency of service or unfair trade practices in order to substantiate his case. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant and he has   produced the photo copy of the quotation and copy of repayment schedule issued on 12.05.2022 and the payment receipt.  On perusal of the repayment schedule statement it discloses that the following EMIs paid by the complainant on,
  •  

EMI Dates

EMI Paid Dates

EMI Amt

  •  
  1.  
  1.  

 

  1.  
  •  
  1.  
  1.  
  1.  
  1.  

signed

  1.  
  1.  
  1.  
  1.  

signed

  1.  
  1.  
  1.  
  1.  

signed

  1.  
  1.  
  1.  
  1.  

signed

  1.  
  1.  
  1.  
  1.  

signed

  1.  
  1.  
  1.  
  1.  

signed

  1.  
  1.  
  1.  
  1.  

signed

  1.  
  1.  
  1.  
  1.  

signed

  1.  
  1.  
  1.  
  1.  

signed

  1.  
  1.  
  1.  
  1.  

signed

  1.  
  1.  
  1.  
  1.  

signed

 

        Whereas this EMIs details shown above discloses that complainant paid  (12) EMIs on the above dates and on perusal of the endorsement made with respect to above payments and on counting the different signature of endorsement from the bank official it discloses that, complainant had paid 12 EMIs towards the repayment of the loan however, though the Ops canvassed in their arguments complainant was at default but did not submit any loan ledger extract or account statement to falsify the case of the complainant.  The complainant being the poor person though he obtained the loan from the Ops but on looking into the evidence placed by the complainant, but we reach to conclusion that on the basis of having receiving the EMIs Ops official acknowledge the receipts of payments by affixing their signature and on counting the number of signatures (endorsement of payments) there are 12 signatures and it proves that complainant duly paid 12 EWIs towards the repayment of the loan amount, but the Ops without producing any rebuttable documentary evidence they are attempted to falsify the case of the complainant and canvassing  that complainant is at fault.  On the basis of the available evidence on record the things itself speak that the Op without giving proper service to the complainant and  the Ops denying 3 EMIs which was already paid by the complainant  and not considering the duly paid EMI’S it amounts  to not only deficiency in service but also it is unfair trade practice.  Accordingly we answered the Point No. (1) in the affirmative.

 

  1. Point No. (2):-   Admittedly complainant in order to purchase the motor bike bearing No. IND KA07EF2945 obtained the loan amount from the OP bank and by contributing the matching amount of Rs.20,500/- and remaining balance is to be agreed to pay within 23 EMIs.  Accordingly complainant duly paid 12 EMIs as averred in his complaint and on perusal of the statement shown above while discussing the point No. (1),  It is sufficient proof of paid 12 EMIs, hence Ops are entitled to collect remaining 11 EMIs from the complainant, accordingly we direct the Ops to collect remaining balance of 11 EMIs per month without imposing any interest from the date of complaint and reschedule the EMI’S from the date of order.  Accordingly we answered this Point No. (2) in the affirmative.

 

  1.    Point No. (3):- On the basis of the answering the points No (1) and (2) and the reasons assigned thereon, we proceed to pass the following.

     ORDER

  1. Complainant is allowed with cost.
  2. That the Ops Indus Bank Kolar represented by its manager is hereby directed to considered all the 12 EMIS paid by the complainant and only to recover the balance of 11 EMI without imposing interest from the date of the complaint and reschedule the remaining 11 EMI’S from the date of order within a week time and the complainant is hereby directed to repay the balance of  EMIS without fail, if complainant failed to repay the remaining 11 months EMIS after reschedule, the Op is at liberty to proceed against complainant in accordance with law .
  3. Ops are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- to the complainant towards the cost of the proceedings.
  4. Further Ops are directed to submit compliance report within 45 days from the date of order.
  5. Send a copy of this order to all the parties to the proceedings at free of cost.

     (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 29th DAY OF AUGUST 2023)

 

 

 

 

            LADY MEMBER                       PRESIDENT

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.