<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 27.06.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 20th AUGUST 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1428/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Krishna,<br /> 54 years,<br /> 3, 2nd Cross, Magadi Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 023.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Standard Chartered Bank,<br /> Central Loan Processing Unit,<br /> Annasalai,<br /> Chennai – 600 001.<br /> <br /> 2. Standard Chartered Bank,<br /> Customer Care Unit,<br /> Mahatma Gandhi Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.K.R.Ganesh<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to settle his account and refund the excess of EMI paid and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant availed financial assistance from the OP agreeing to repay the same in an EMI, EMI was to start from October 2007 but thereafter some how OP failed to stick on its promise with regard to payment of insurance charges and advance EMI. Complainant was not satisfied with the accounts of the OP. On his request OP expressed its regrets with regard to certain mistakes in the transaction and addressed a letter stating that the amount in due is Rs.2,93,325-94 and the repayment starts from November 2007. Complainant requested OP to adjust EMI paid by him in the month of October 2007. OP didn’t accept the said offer. Being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP on 30.10.2007 he made a claim to settle the whole amount in due under One Time Settlement. According to him after deducting the EMI already paid, he was liable to pay only Rs.2,50,440/-. He sent a cheque for the said amount and sought for ‘No due certificate’. Till today OP failed to respond to him. On the other hand went on adding the EMI and the interest on the so called amount in due. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant availed two loans, old loan No.45069298 and present disputed loan is bearing No.46987002. The old loan is merged with new loan. Complainant is expected to pay instalment from October 05, 2007. Old loan was pre-closed as per the request of the complainant and new top-up loan was opened consolidating the entire outstanding. Old loan EMI was Rs.7,085/- and new loan top-up EMI was Rs.8,656/-. Of course the amount mentioned Rs.5,065/- is pre-closure fee applicable for the earlier closure of the old loan account. It is collected as per the terms and conditions of the Banking norms and procedure. The old loan outstanding at the time of closure was Rs.2,11,643-29. After deducting the same OP issued a pay order for Rs.69,948-71 out of Rs.3,00,000/- loan sanctioned. Rs.5,065/- is not deducted towards the EMI. When complainant got confused himself the second repayment schedule was issued providing EMI break-up for 12 months starting from November 2007 to October 2008. Complainant has done his own calculation without referring to pre-closure quotation. The other allegations made by the complainant are all false and baseless. OP is readily agreeable to close the account at one time settlement if complainant pays the entire amount in due including pre-closure charges and interest. But complainant on the basis of his own calculation sent a cheque only for Rs.2,50,000/- which is not acceptable to the OP. Under the circumstances there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The claim of the complainant is baseless. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has earlier availed certain loan from OP under old account No.45069298. It is contended by the complainant that though he was not interested for the top-up loan OP officials forced him to go for loan of Rs.3,00,000/-. He without finding any other way agreed to have the disputed loan with the OP and the EMI starts from October 05, 2007. He is prompt in making payment of the earlier EMI but still to the reasons best known to OP. OP has taken into account of the said EMI paid earlier with respect to old loan. The calculation arrived at by the OP is wrong. Though he was ready to settle the account as One Time Settlement by making an offer on 30.10.2007 and agreeing to pay the out standing due of Rs.2,50,440/- apart from 9 EMI already paid, OP failed to settle the account and failed to issue No due certificate. Thus he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that old loan out standing at the time of closure was Rs.2,11,643-29 and after deduction of the old loan and other charges applicable including that off pre-closure charges OP has issued a pay order for Rs.69,948-71 to the complainant. This fact is not denied by the complainant.<br /> <br /> 8. It is further contended by the OP that complainant had paid EMI for old loan account till September 2007 and EMI for new loan account came into effect from October 2007. The repayment schedule was issued on September 21, 2007 wherein the repayment schedule was for 13 EMI starting from October 2007 to October 2008 for the principal outstanding amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Copies of the repayment schedule are produced so also the loan application and other terms and conditions, revised repayment schedule, statement of accounts.<br /> <br /> 9. The contents of the said documents is not disputed or denied by the complainant. Under such circumstances we find there is no substance in the allegation of the complainant that deduction of Rs.5,065/- is towards the EMI of the new loan account. When there is a proposal for pre-closure of the earlier loan account naturally under Banking norms, practice and procedure OP is entitled to collect pre-closure charges of 5.61% + service tax on the principal out standing. It is there under the agreement. So charging of the said pre-closure charges and other services as per the terms of the agreement does not amount to deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 10. The calculation arrived at by the complainant that he is liable to pay only Rs.2,50,000/- and odd is wrong. That is why, when complainant sent his request letter for a lesser amount for One Time Settlement. OP didn’t accept the same and that act of the OP also can’t be termed as deficiency in service. Viewed from any angle the allegations made in the complaint didn’t spell out the case of hiring of service and suffering from deficiency. Rather it discloses a case relating to settlement of account and for the balance in due on the basis of the accounts. The complaint didn’t fall within the ambit of sec.2(1) (c) & (e) of the C.P Act. If the complainant is so advised he can file a civil suit to redress his grievance and seek remedy. For these reasons we find complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. The option is still open to the complainant to settle the claim in the One Time Settlement as per the terms and conditions applicable. Accordingly we find complaint is devoid of merits. Hence we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 20th day of August 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />