OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C.10/14
Present:-
1) Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2) Smti Archana Deka Lahkar - Member
3) Md Jamatul Islam -Member
Smt Rakashree Sharma -Complainant
W/O- Late Basanta Sharma
R/O- Unit-II/G,Irrigation Colony
Chandmari,Guwahati-03
-VS-
1) The Nodal Officer - Opp.Party
Grievance Redressal,Axis Bank Ltd.
5th floor,Solaria
Opp. L& T Gate No-6,
Saki Vihar Road
Powai,Mumbai-400072
2) The Branch Manager
Axis Bank Ltd(R.A.C)
4th floor,Jain Complex
Christian Basti,G.S.Road,Dispur,Guwahati-05
Appearance:
Appearance: Ld davocate Mr Ratul Das for the complainant and Ld advocate Mr Mukesh Sarmah for the opp. party.
Date of argument - 08.03.2018
Date of judgment - 23.03.2018
JUDGMENT
This is a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
1.The complaint filed by Smt Rakashree Sharma against Nodal Officer, Grievance Redressal, Axis BankLtd. , Mumbai and Branch Manager, Axis Bank Ltd., Christianbasti Branch ,Guwahati was admitted on 28/01/2014 and notices were served on the opp. parties and they also filed their written statement .
The complainant filed her evidence on affidavit and she was cross examined by the opp. party side and the opp. party side filed evidence of Sri Mahendra Sarma on affidavit and he was also cross examined by the complainant side. After closure of hearing of evidence, Ld advocate Mr Ratul Das filed written argument for the complainant on 10/10/2017 and Ld advocate Mr Mukesh Sarmah filed written argument for the opp. parties on 18/01/2018 . Thereafter , on 08/03/2018 we heard oral argument of both side’s Ld counsels and today we deliver our judgment , which is as below.
2.The case of the complainant in brief is that her husband Late Basanta Kumar Sharma had purchased a vehicle vide Registration No-AS-01-AF-8179 on 14/02/2008 taking a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from Axis Bank ,G.S.Road,Guwahati of which , monthly installment was Rs.4,414/- by executing an agreement bearing No-AU1400100028160 with Opp.Party No-2 , but unfortunately her husband died on 15/12/2009 and her husband paid installment regularly during his life and after his death she approached Opp.Party No-2 to liquidate the loan account on payment of the outstanding amount and the Opp.Party No-2 prepared a final foreclosure statement amounting to Rs.27,081/- and gave the same to her and she had paid the amount instantly and in the final foreclosure statement there is no pending due installment amount had been mentioned and after receiving the amount from her the opp. party completed formalities for issuing NOC to her but inform her to collect the same after one week and when her representative visit the bank to collect the same the opp. parties advised her representative to come after another one week for collecting the same and while after one week she and her representative visited the bank to collect the same, their officials told her that they have lost the death certificate of her husband and requested her to submit the same and accordingly she furnished the copy of the same and after receiving it, their officials advised her to come after some days. Accordingly while she visited the office of the opp. parties after some days , their official again asked her to come after some days giving false promises and thatway she visited the bank on several occasions but the bank never issued the NOC to her. Thereafter , on 24/11/2012 while she again visited the bank, the official of the bank instead of issuing the NOC asked her to pay an amount of Rs.6,594/- as outstanding amount but she protested the same stating that final foreclosure amount of Rs.27,081/- had already been paid by her on 08/08/2012 as per final foreclosure statement . The opp. parties act of claiming that amount and refusing to issue NOC are highly illegal acts amounting to unfair trade practice . Finding no way she, sent legal notice to the opp. parties but they did not respond . Therefore she prays for directing the opp. parties to issue the NOC of the said vehicle and to pay her compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.
3.The pleading of the opp. parties in brief is that , the complainant is not a consumer of them as per Consumer Protection Act,1986 (amended on 15/03/2003) she has no cause of action against them and they did not commit any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as defined U/S-2 ( o and r) of the Act. The relief sought by the complainant fall outside the ambit of clauses (a) to (i) of Sec-14(1) of the Act. The complaint is barred on the ground of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. The complaint is vexatious and frivolous . On the request of the complainant they issued a foreclosure notice to her on 06/08/2012 whereby the date of foreclosure considered was 08/08/2012. As per receipt dtd.10/08/2012 and the statement of account for the period w.e.f 05/03/2008 to 25/11/2013 it has been found that Rs.27,081/- was paid the complainant and that was received by them on 11/08/2012. As per Clause-I of “note” of the said foreclosure, being relevant for the instant adjudication quoted here in “1. THIS QUOTE ASSUMES THAT YOUR LAST EMI HAS CLEARED”, where by it is clear that, the amount of Rs.27,081/- was not inclusive of last equated monthly installment upon which they have every legal right to collect. They did not prefer the NOC as alleged by the complainant. Complainant had visited only on 29/11/2013 and on that day they informed her that last equated monthly installment was bounced on 09/08/2012 and the same was due to them and so they rightly demanded the same. In the foreclosure presented by the complainant it is clearly mentioned that the amount quoted in the said foreclosure assumes that the last installment was paid, but the statement of the loan account clearly shows that on 05/08/2012 an amount of Rs.4,414/- shown debited again, on the said date, Rs,4,414/- was shown as credited and again on the same date Rs.4,414/- shown as bounced , and so it transpires that the complainant neglected to pay the said amount to them and as such said amount is still due in the loan account. They replied that the legal notice issued by the complainant vide their letter dtd.29/11/2013 where by they rejected all contensions made by the complainant’s pleader demanded payment of Rs.5,293/- but the complainant suppressed that fact. By not paying said amount the complainant caused loss to them. The complainant raised a frivolous cause of action for filing the instant complaint for some patty benefits and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4.We have perused the pleading as well as evidence of both the parties and it transpires to us that the husband of the complainant Late Basanta Kr Sharma had purchased a vehicle vide Registration No-AS-01AF-8179 on 24/02/2008 by taking a loan amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- from Axis Bank ,G.S.Road (Opp.Party No-2) on monthly instalment of Rs.4,414 and to that effect both the parties executed agreement no –AU1400100028160 but he has died on 05/12/2009 and during his life time he paid due installment to Opp.Party No-2 .
It is also found that both side admits that on 08/08/2012 the complainant and her friend Mr H.Saikia approached Opp.Party No-2 to liquidate the loan account on payment of balance installment amount at a time and Opp.Party No-2 immediately prepared a final foreclosure statement of Rs.27,081/- and gave the same to the complainantand she had paid the said amount instantlyand that, in the said foreclosurestatement no pending due installment amount had beenmentioned and that , after foreclosure of the loan account the opp. party did not issue NOCin respect of the vehicle to the complainant but asked her to come after one week and the representativeof the complainant visited accordingly after one week to collect the NOC but the opp. party advised the said representativeto come after another one week and she and her representative again visited the R.A.C officials of the opp. party to collect the same but the later told them that they lost the Death Certificate of complainant’s husband and requested her to deposit the Death Certificate and accordingly she deposited the Death Certificateof her husband but the officials of the opp. parties asked them to come after some days and thereafter she and her representativevisited the concerned office of the opp. party for obtaining the NOC but they did not issue NOC to her and thereafter on 24/11/2012 while the complainant visited the said office for collecting the NOC , the opp. party instead of issuing NOC had asked her to pay an amount of Rs.6594/- as outstanding amount against the loan.
5.Now the moot question is whether the complainant has a liability to pay the opp. party an amount of Rs.6594/- as outstanding amount of the loan taken by her husband. In this case the complainant side’s plea is that the loan taken by complainant’s husband has already been foreclosed on 08/08/2012 by the Opp.Party No-2 after collecting total outstanding amount of Rs.27081/- from her and hence there remains no amount as outstanding against the loan taken by her husband and therefore refusing to issue the NOC by the opp. party is an act of deficiency of service towards her. In this respect the plea of the opp. party is that, in the foreclosed statement there is a clause that “ 1.THIS COPY ASSUMES THAT YOUR LAST EMI HAS CLEARED” and whereby it is clear that the amount of Rs.27081/- which was paid on 08/08/2012 has not inclusive of last equated monthly installment and that statement of loan account clearly shows that on 05/08/2012 an amount of Rs.4414/- was shown debited and on the same day Rs.4414 was shown credited and again on the same day Rs.4414/- shown as bounced from which it transpires that the complainant failed to pay Rs.4414/- (last installment) and that amount become Rs.5293/- . When interest is fixed on the said amount and they are entitled to get payment of Rs.5293/- from the complainant and for non payment of said amount the NOC is witheld.
Ld counsel of the opp. party submits that from Exhibit-A the statement of the loan account it is crystal clear that on 05/08/2012 an amount of Rs.4414 was outstanding against the loan and on that very day said amount was debited and on that very day said amounts was credited on account of PDC N-E44372/54 receipt No-(N/A) bounced (as cheque was bounced) . We have perused the said statement of the accounts and found that whatever Ld advocate of the opp. party submits is correct. Thus , it is established that on 05/08/2012 an amount of Rs.4414/- was outstanding against the said loan account and on that very day the system of the bank first debited the said amount on that very daybut again credited on that very day for bouncing and thereby it is proved that the last installment of the loan taken by the complainant’s husband is still due meaning thereby Rs.4414/- is the outstanding amount against the said loan.
6. Now question is that whether the opp. party issued any notice to the complainant to clear the said outstanding amount. In this respect the complainant states that no notice was served upon her before 24/11/2012 and she came to know about the outstanding amount on 24/11/2012 when she visited Opp.Party No-2 bank to request for releasing NOC. It is found that, the loan account was closed on 08/08/2012 and for the first time i.e on 24/1/2012the opp. party verbally told the complainant that the last installment of the loan is still due and it becomes Rs.6594/- which clarified that after getting 3 months 16 days time after foreclosure of the loan, the opp. party did not notify the complainant that the last installment is stil due. In such situation we shall presume that, after foreclosure and liquidation of the loan the opp. party has no authority to withdraw the foreclosure and continue the loan account and that is why they did not notify the complainant aqbout the non clearance of last installment of the said loan. From the record it is found that the opp. party bank has not withdrawn the foreclosure but verbally ask the complainant to pay Rs.6594/- against the last installment. Therefore, we are of opinion that , the opp. party can not withdraw the foreclosure statement ,that was done on 08/08/2012 receiving Rs.27081/- from the complainant and demand any amount against the last installment of the said amount.
7.As we hold that the opp. party side has no right to withdraw the foreclosure statement and demand any amount against the last installment of the loan taken by the husband of the complainant, in our opinion they have no right to refuse issuance of NOC of the concerned vehicle to the complainant and they are legally bound to issue the said NOC.
8.From our above discussion we have already found that the opp. party illegally refused to issue the NOC to the complainant although she is entitled to get the same on 08/08/2012 and they have also no right to demand a further amount of Rs.6594/- as last installment of the loan from the complainant. So we hold that the very act of refusal on the part of the opp. parties in issuing the NOC to the complainant is an act of deficiency of service towards the complainant and also is an act of unfair trade practice.
By doing such deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, the opp. party caused harassment to the complainant as well asput her in mental agony. Secondly, it is found that after 08/08/2012 due to deficiency of service of the opp. parties the complainant failed to get the vehicle of her deceased husband transferred to her name and there by failed to get comfort from that vehicle. Thirdly, as the vehicle is kept in unpliable state for several years, it contributed to decrease of efficiency of the said vehicle and depreciation of its value. Therefore, for all such causes the opp. paqrties are liable to pay atleast Rs.60,000/- as compensation.
9. It is also found that , for no fault of the complainant she had to prosecute the opp. parties before this forum to get her grievances redressed by incurring a good sum in engaging advocate and in incurring expenditure in the visit to this forum. Therefore, we hold that the opp. parties are liable to pay atleast Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as the cost of proceeding.
10.Because of what has been discussed as above, we hold that , the complaint has merit and she is entitled to get relieves as discussed above. Accordingly, the complaint against both the opp. parties is allowed on contest and they are directed to immediately issue NOC in respect of the concerned vehicle in favour of the complainant and to pay her Rs.60,000/- as compensation as well as Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeding , to which, both the opp. parties are jointly and severally liable. They are directed to implement the award within 30 days , in default, the amounts shall carry interest @12% per annum from this day and they are to face punishment under provision of Section-27 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Given under our hands and seal on this day of 23rd March,2018.
(Smt Archana Deka Lahkar) (Md.Jamatul Islam) (Md.Sahadat Hussain) Member Member President
