DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 16th day of December, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
Date of Filing: 06/04/2022
CC 56/2022
Rajasree,
D/O. Rajagopalan,
Ramanchath House,
Pathankulam, - Complainant
Vaniyankulam – 679 522
(By Adv. P.Gokuldas)
V/s
The manager,
Orange Retail Finance Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Kunnathurmedu,
Kalmandapam, P. O., - Opposite party
Palakkad – 678 013
(By Adv. C.Abhi Chand)
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
1. The Complainant availed a loan of Rs. 71500/- from the opposite party on 03/07/2019 for purchasing a two wheeler from the TVS dealer in Ottappalam. The EMI payable was Rs. 2881/- for 36 months. She had given ECS mandate to the opposite party for debiting the EMI from her account with Canara Bank, Vaniyankulam. Since her housing loan installment was being debited to the same account, she opened another account for debiting the EMIs of the Two wheeler loan and account details were submitted to the opposite party through the TVS dealer. When change of account didn't happen, she contacted the opposite party, who in turn advised her to remit the EMIs through their collection agent. Her allegation is that while she was remitting the EMIs as advised by the opposite party, they continued sending the ECS debit advices to the bank which got returned for want of funds. Bank collected return charges and it created negative balance in her account. When the proceeds of a loan sanctioned to her by a finance company was credited to the same account, entire return charges were recovered by the Bank. This has happened due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. They entered appearance and filed their version. Since the version was filed beyond the statutory period, it was rejected.
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents as Ext. A-1 &A-2. A-1 is the loan account statement and A-2,the statement of the Savings Bank account with Canara Bank, Vaniyankulam. According to the proof affidavit, the opposite party has stopped sending the ECS debits to her bank account after filing this complaint.
4. A careful reading of Ext. A-1 along with A-2 gives us some indication that the ECS debit advices were being sent by the opposite party when the complainant was making direct payment of installments. However in the absence of any documents regarding the lodging of ECS mandate and its cancellation, we are unable to conclude that the opposite party is at fault in sending the ECS debit advices to the Complainant's bank account, which resulted in the debit of ECS return charges. Further, the complainant's argument that she acted as per the advice of the opposite party has not been established by way of cross examination of the opposite party. Hence, in the absence of cogent evidence to establish the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, this complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 16th day of December, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K
Member
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the Complainant
Ext. A-1: Loan account statement issued by the opposite party.
Ext. A-2: Savings Bank Account statement of the complainant issued by
Canara Bank, Vaniyankulam.
Documents marked from the side of Opposite party: Nil
Witness examined: Nil
Cost: Nil
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
