Kerala

Palakkad

86/2006

Gijo Paul - Complainant(s)

Versus

The manager - Opp.Party(s)

30 Dec 2006

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Civil Station Palakkad,Pin:678001
consumer case(CC) No. 86/2006

Gijo Paul
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The manager
Satheeshkumar
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala Dated this the 30th day of December, 2006 Present: Shri.Roy Kurian, President Mrs.K.P.Suma, Member C.C.No.86/2006 Gijo Paul, S/o.Paul, Kottikadan House, Court Road, Alathur, Palakkad. - Complainant Vs 1.The Manager, HDFC Bank, Chandranagar Branch, Palakkad. 2.Satheeshkumar, Collection Officer, HDFC Bank, Chandranagar, Palakkad. - Opposite parties O R D E R By Shri.Roy Kurian, President The complainant availed a loan amount of Rs.25,000/- for purchase of a 2 wheeler from 1st opposite party on 10.6.05 and the 24th instalment amount of Rs.1,210/- was to be cleared through S.B.T, Alathur Branch. The complainant was prompt in making the payments on 10.12.05, the 2nd opposite party who is the collecting officer of 1st opposite party approached the complainant and said that there was default in his payment of 6th instalment amount for the : 2 : month of November 2005 and threatened legal action for recovery of the amount. The complainant then gave the instalment amount of Rs.1,210/- and receipt for having received the amount for the month of November 2005 was also given by 2nd opposite party. The complainant then made enquiry in his bank account and it was noticed that the 6th instalment amount of Rs.1,210/- re-presenting the same for the month of November 2005 had already been debited from his account and credited to the 1st opposite party. When this was put to the opposite parties they gave evasive replies and hence lawyer notice was sent to opposite parties. The 1st opposite party sent reply admitting the mistake at their end and also promised to make good the loss. So far nothing is done in the matter by opposite parties which is a gross deficiency in service on their part. Hence this complaint directing return of amount together with compensation with costs. The 1st opposite party accepted the notice and entered appearance. The 2nd opposite party even though accepted notice remained absent and was therefore set ex-parte. The 1st opposite party did not file version. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked exhibits A1 to A4. Heard. The issue to be decided is the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs. The specific case set up by the complainant is that the opposite parties have collected Rs.1,210/- from him being the instalment for the month of November 2005 even when they have debited the said amount from the account of the complainant re-presenting the instalment amount for the month of November 2005. In other words, they have collected the instalment amount : 3 of Rs.1,210/- twice from the complainant for the month of November 2005. Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 will prove this fact. There is no reason also to doubt these documents. Further in Ext.A4 reply notice sent to Ext.A3 lawyer notice, the 1st opposite party has admitted collection of amounts twice which they characterise as an error occurred in updation of the computer. There is also an undertaking that they will make good the loss. Admittedly, the same has not been complied to this day. The fact that the 1st instalment amount was collected twice re-presenting for the month of November 2005 and the admission of the mistake in Ext.A4 reply is sufficient in our view to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties together with the fact that they have gone back from their under taking given in Ext.A4. Opposite parties have also not chosen to contest the case. The complainant has certainly suffered from the acts of the opposite parties and hence he is entitled to get compensation. Issue is answered in favour of complainant. We, therefore, allow the complaint. We direct opposite parties to pay Rs.1,210/- to the complainant together with compensation of Rs.2,000/- and cots of Rs.400/- to the complainant within one month of receipt of this order. Failure to pay the above said amount will result in opposite parties paying the aforesaid amount at 6% interest from the date of order till realisation. Complaint allowed with costs. Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of December, 2006 President (Sd) Member (Sd) : 4 : Appendix Exhibits marked on the side of complainant Ext.A1 – Cash Receipt Ext.A2 – State of accounts from the complainant's bank (showing remittance) Exst.A3 (Series) – Copy of the lawyer notice along with postal receipt and acknowledgement Ext.A4 – Reply notice by 1st opposite party Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party Nil Costs (allowed) Rs.400/- (Rupees Four hundred only) allowed as costs to the complainant Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- Senior Superintendent