Haryana

Ambala

CC/296/2019

Amit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Zonal Manager IDFC - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjay Kumar Rana

01 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	296 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	16.09.2019
Date of decision	:	01.12.2022

 

Amit Kumar son of Shri Isham Singh, residents of village Rampur Sub Tehsil Saha, Tehsil Ambala Cantt. and District Ambala.

          ……. Complainant.

                                                  Versus

1. The Zonal Manager, IDFC First Bank, Ground Floor, Prem Dohil Saden-II, Rajinder Palace, New Delhi. (110008).
2. The Branch Manager, IDFC First Bank, 180/123, 2nd Floor, Minerva Complex, Ambala Cantt. (133001).

  ….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

           Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Puneet Sirpaul, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

 (i) To return the amount of Rs.56,664/-, wrongly and illegally withdrawn from the accounts of complainant along with the interest charged thereon

(ii) To pay Rs.20,000/- as damages on account of mental agony, harassment, the deficient services and unfair trade practice.

(iii) To pay Rs. 11,000/- as legal fee.

(iv) Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Commission may deems fit.

2.             Brief facts of this case are that the complainant approached OP No.2 in the year 2017, for grant of facility for business cum personal loan. OP No.2 after completion of requisite formalities by the complainant disbursed the loan amount of Rs.1,69,000/-, on 19.07.2017 vide  Loan A/c No.12166625. The loan amount was repayable in 48 months in equal installments Rs.5,538/- per month along with agreed interest. The complainant repaid the major portion of loan amount to OP No.2. Later on due to some unavoidable circumstances and business see saw, the complainant could not pay some installments of the loan in question. On 01.06.2019 one message was received from the OPs on the mobile phone of Complainant i.e., "Amount Rs.43,450/- towards LAN 12166625 is overdue >90 days. Pay Immediately at IDFC First Bank Loan Service Desk or at www.idfcfirstbank.com to avoid further legal action. Please ignore if paid." The complainant was ready and willing to pay the above said due amount and was waiting for collection boy of the OPs but without any prior notice and intimation given to complainant, OP No.2 presented three cheques out of four cheques which were blank signed and were taken by OP No.2 at the time of granting loan to complainant. The OPs illegally filled excess amount in those blank signed cheques and presented the same and withdrew the amount Rs.83,500/- and Rs. 16,614/- on 11.06.2019 by cheque No. 362357 and 362361, from the accounts of the complainant. On 12.06.2019 cheque bearing No.362359 amounting to Rs.33,228/- was presented in their account which was got dishonored. The OPs wrongly and illegally withdrew Rs.56,664/- without intimating and informing to complainant which is excess than due amount.  The complainant has also served legal notice dated 02.08.2019 upon the OPs to refund the excess amount received by them but to no avail. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, jurisdiction, not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts etc.  On merits, it has been stated that personal loan was disbursed to the complainant vide loan agreement no.12166625 on 19.07.2019. At that time, the complainant assured that he shall discharge the liability in time. However, after paying some installments, the complainant failed to repay the same. Accordingly, loan recall notice was also dispatched to the complainant on 05.02.2019, yet, he failed to pay the amount and discharge the liability. The complainant issued the cheque stated in the complaint and assured the OPs that the cheques would be honoured on their presentation. When on the assurance of the complainant, the OPs presented the cheques, the same were encashed and the one cheque was bounced. The OPs have their right to recover the amount by adopting the legal recourse.  Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs failed to tender their evidence, as a result of which, their evidence was closed vide order dated 31.10.2022.  
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the OPs could have given some breathing time to the complainant, to make payment of the due amount towards the loan in question, as he was suffering from financial crunch, yet, by encashing the cheques handed over by the complainant, after filling the amount of their own choice, the OPs have indulged into unfair trade practice.
7.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs submitted that before encashing the cheques handed over by the complainant himself, the OPs gave opportunity to the complainant, vide loan recall notice dated 05.02.2019 to make payment of the amount due in respect of the loan in question, yet, when he failed to do so, left with no alternative, the OPs were right in encashing the said cheques for recovery of their due amount.
8.           It is not in dispute that the complainant failed to repay the entire loan amount availed from the OPs. It is also not in dispute that the complainant had handed over three cheques, referred to above, to the OPs. It may be stated here that though the complainant has contended with vehemence that  the OPs have indulged into unfair trade practice by encashing those cheques, yet, in the same breadth, he also admitted the fact that he failed to repay the entire loan amount disbursed by the OPs. In our considered opinion, when the complainant himself has admitted the fact that he could not repay the entire loan amount, as such, under those circumstances, if the OPs have encahsed the cheques handed over by the complainant himself, to recover their loan amount, they cannot be said to be deficient in providing service or guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice. It is also significant to mention here that it is evident that the OPs vide letter/loan recall notice dated 05.02.2019, had cautioned the complainant to pay the entire outstanding balance of Rs.1,40,403/- failing which it was made clear that necessary action shall be taken. However, there is nothing on record that after receiving the said letter/loan recall notice, the complainant made payment of the said outstanding loan amount to the OPs. Even this letter/loan recall notice was not responded by the complainant, what to speak of making payment of the due amount. Thus, in our considered opinion, if the OPs have levied delayed payment interest on the due amount, on that score also, they cannot be held to be deficient in providing service or guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice.
9.           In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that because the complainant has failed to prove his case, resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the complainants, free of costs. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 01.12.2022

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President