Date of Filing:17.06.2009<br /> Date of Order:30.03.2010<br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 30th DAY OF MARCH 2010<br /> PRESENT<br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1394 OF 2009 <br /> <br /> <br /> Shreehari<br /> S/o B.R.Padmanabha,<br /> Major, No.111, 10th Main<br /> Lakkasandra Extension,<br /> Bangalore – 560 039. <br /> <br /> Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> The Manager,<br /> The Cholamandalam Finance Ltd.,<br /> No.28/1, Kinsington Road,<br /> Opp. Ulssor Gurudhwara,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> Opposite Party <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying that Opposite Party be directed to reschedule and restructure the repayable loan amount availed by the complainant by extending repayment period to 12 years, to direct the Opposite Party to delete all the illegal charges, to reduce the interest, to consider the representation dated 24/05/2009 and to pay compensation. <br /> 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant on 24/05/2009 gave representation to the Opposite Party stating that because of recession, he is not able to pay the stipulated EMIs’ and requested the repayment of credit card loan may be rescheduled and restructured by extending the term of repayment to 12 years. Non consideration of the representation of repayment term from three years to 12 years amounts to deficiency in service. Charging interest in excess of 30% Per Annum is unfair trade practice. The Opposite Party has to consider the representation of the complainant with regard to the credit card loan amount. RBI has issued guidelines not to use illegal methods to recover the amount. Despite receiving representation, the Opposite Party has failed to consider the representation. Hence, the complaint. <br /> 3. The opposite party has filed defence version stating that the complaint is not maintainable and it should be dismissed in limine. The complainant is not a Consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant availed financial assistance to an extent of Rs.5,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same in 48 equated monthly installments. As per the statement of account, the complainant is having overdue amount of Rs.70,983/-. The complainant has taken two personal loans. The Opposite Party admitted that the complainant made representation on 24/05/2009. The question of rescheduling and restricting the existing loans of the complainant is a discretionary power of the Opposite Party that cannot be questioned and claimed as of right by the complainant and the same is not provided under the terms of loan agreement. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. The complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. Therefore, the Opposite Party prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 4. Affidavit evidence of the respective parties has been filed. Arguments are heard.<br /> 5. The points for consideration are:- <br /> 1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> <br /> 2) Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. My finds to the above points is in the NEGATIVE for the following:-<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> Point Nos. 1 to 2:- <br /> 7. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties and affidavit evidence. By going through the entire complaint averments, deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party cannot be made out. There is no question of any deficiency in service rendered by the Opposite Party. Admittedly the complainant is due to the Opposite Party and is a defaulter. As such a person cannot claim any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. The question of reschedule and restructure of payment of the loan is a matter within the discretion of the Opposite Party. The court or Judicial Forum cannot direct the Opposite Party or any financial Institution to reschedule the payment of loan as per the requirement of the complainant or lonee. It is true that the complainant has given representation to the Opposite Party on 24/05/2009 requesting the Opposite Party for rescheduling and restructuring the repayment period extending from 03 years to 12 years. It is for the Opposite Party to consider the representation of the complainant and give reasonable relief as per the discretion. However, the Opposite Party having admitted in the version, the representation submitted by the complainant. It is better and fair on the part of Opposite Party to consider the representation of the complainant and pass appropriate orders on that representation and communicate decision to the complainant. <br /> 8. Secondly the matters now raised by the complainant are requires to be decided and sorted out by mutually, by consultation, communication and settlement. The District Forum cannot interfere in the matter of this nature. The issues raised in this case are fit to be settled or decided between the parties amicably by communication and talk. RBI has established Banking Ombudsman for resolution of disputes between the customers and Bank. Since the Banking Ombudsman scheme has been formulated under guidelines of the RBI, it is for the complainant to approach Banking Ombudsman with his grievances. The Ombudsman has got power to pass award under Rule 12 of the Scheme and pass appropriate orders. So under these circumstances, it is better for the complainant to approach Banking Ombudsman for redressal of his grievances. With this observation, the present complaint is not maintainable and it deserved to be dismissed. The complainant has miserably failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. Therefore, question of granting any relief to the complainant from the hands of this Forum, does not arise at all. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- <br /> ORDER<br /> 1) The complaint is DISMISSED. <br /> 2) Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 3) Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30th DAY OF MARCH 2010. <br /> <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br />