DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE No.1542/F, Anikethana Road, C and D Block, J.C.S.T. Layout, Kuvempunagara, (Behind Jagadamba Petrol Bunk), Mysore-570009. consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/558
IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE. Dated this 14th day of October 2010 Complaint No. 558/2010 Present: 1) Sri. T.H. Narayangowda, President. 2) Smt. Y.V. Uma Shenoi, Member. 3) Sri. Shivakumar .J, Member. Complainant: J. Krishne Gowda, Major, Assistance, CHESCOM, Nagamangala Sub-division, Nagamangala, Mandya District. (By Sri. N.G., Advocate). V/S Opponents: The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, 47D/47E, Ashoka Road, Mysore-1. (By Sri. R.S., Advocate) (Order dictated by Sri. T.H.Narayana GowdaPresident) ORDER This is a complaint filed by the complainant u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 against the opponent praying for directing the opponent to refund the excess amount of Rs.6,528/- collected from him and to pay the compensation of Rs.15,000/-, towards mental agony and cost of the complaint and also to direct the opponent to handover the R.C. book and the key of the hypothecated vehicle etc.,. 2) The case of the complainant in brief as set out in the complaint is as follows:- That the complainant is working as Assistant in CHESCOM, Nagamangala. In the year 2004, the complainant had availed the loan of Rs.61,020/- from the opponent Bank, for purchasing the two wheeler. The opponent Bank had sanctioned the said loan with a condition to repay the said amount in 60 monthly installments of Rs.1,017/- each. Accordingly, the drawing officer of the complainant has deducted the monthly installments of the loan regularly from his salary from the month of April 2004 to August 2009 and again from September 2009 to January 2010 and sent the said installments to the opponent Bank by way of cheques so as to adjust them to the loan account of the complainant. Thus, the opponent has collected the total sum of Rs.70,173/- in 69 installments instead of collecting the sum of Rs.61,020/- in 60 installments and thereby collected the excess amount of Rs.6,528/- excluding the insurance policy amount of Rs.2,625/- paid by the opponent. The complainant came to know the said fact after obtaining the statement of account. Hence, he has addressed the letters dated 16.12.2009 and 27.03.2010 to the opponent demanding him to refund the excess amount. In spite of the same, the opponent has neither complied with his demand nor replied to the said letters. Thus though the opponent has collected the excess amount, the opponent has not handed over the R.C. book and the key of the hypothecated vehicle after canceling the hypothecation entry in the R.C. book. As stated above, the service of the opponent Bank is not satisfactory and it amounts to deficiency in service. He has approached the opponent several times to settle the said matter and incurred the expenses of Rs.2,000/-. Thus due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opponent, the complainant has suffered lot of mental agony and torture apart from monitory loss. Therefore, the opponent is liable to pay the compensation and cost apart from refunding the excess amount. Hence, this complaint is filed against the opponent for the reliefs sought for in the complaint. Mainly on these averments, the complainant has filed this complaint and urged for allowing the same with cost. 3) In pursuance of the notice of the complaint issued by RPAD, the opponent appeared before the Forum through his counsel and resisted the complaint by filing the written version. In the said version, the opponent has clearly admitted the loan transaction alleged in the complaint and the payment of installments received through the drawing officer of the complainant etc., but denied the deficiency in service and the collecting of excess amount of Rs.6.528/- alleged by the complainant as false. On the other hand, the opponent has contended that the complainants drawing officer has not regularly remitted the installments of the loan amount as on the due dates and therefore the interest by way of penalty was imposed on the delayed payments apart from paying Insurance Policy amount of the hypothecated vehicle due to the failure of the complainant to pay the said amounts. Thus the opponent has contended that due to the non-payment of insurance policy amounts by the complainant, the opponent has paid the said amounts and credited the said amounts to the loan account of the complainant along with interest thereon. Likewise, the opponent has substantiated his stand and further contended that there is absolutely no deficiency in service. In spite of the same, the complainant has filed this false complaint solely with the intention of harassing of the opponent. Mainly on these grounds, the opponent has urged for the dismissal of the complaint with cost. 4) After filing of objections, the case was posted for evidence. Thereupon the complainant has filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and relied upon several documents in support of his case and closed his evidence. Thereafter, the opponent has filed the affidavit in lieu of evidence and relied upon several documents in support of his defence and closed his evidence. Hence, thereafter, heard the arguments of both sides and then posted the case for orders. 5) In view of the aforesaid contentions taken by both the parties and the arguments submitted by their learned advocates, the points that would arise for our consideration are as follows:- 1) Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint? 2) What Order? 6) Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:- Point No.1:- Partly in the affirmative. Point No.2:- As per final order for the following, REASONS 7) Point No.1:- On perusal of the pleadings of both the parties clearly disclose that there is absolutely no dispute between them regarding the loan transaction and the collection of installments as alleged by the complainant. But, there is a dispute between the parties regarding the collection of excess amount alleged by the complainant. The complainant has contended that the opponent has collected the excess amount of Rs.6,528/- and therefore, the opponent is liable to refund the said amount. But, the opponent has contended that, the said amount was legally collected as interest by way of penalty on the delayed payments of installments of the loan amount. In view of the aforesaid contentions of both the parties, it is the duty of the complainant to show that the loan installments were regularly paid by his drawing officer to the opponent bank within the due dates of each installment. In support of the said contention, the complainant has also sworn on oath in his affidavit. He has also produced the statement of deductions made by his drawing officer in support of his contention. But, the complainant has not placed any material on record to show that the installments of the loan deducted by his drawing officer were sent to the opponent bank within the due dates of each installment. Hence, in the absence of any such material on record, it is not possible to reach the conclusion that the complainants drawing officer has sent the installments of the loan amount to the opponent bank within due dates of each installment. Even, the statement of loan account produced by the opponent also support his defence of delayed payments of installments and levying of interest on the delayed payments. Hence, under these circumstances, it is not possible to say that the opponent has collected the excess amount without any valid reason. Thus, the complainant has failed to establish his case that the opponent has collected the excess amount of Rs.6,528/- without any reason and therefore, he is not entitled for the relief of refund of amount claimed in the complaint. 8) In so far as the other relief of return of the R.C.book and the key of the vehicle is concerned, the complainant has taken the contention that though the opponent has collected more than loan amount he has not returned the R.C. book and the key of the vehicle in spite of repeated demands. In the affidavit also, the complainant has duly sworn to that effect. In the objections as well as in the affidavit, the opponent has not at all disputed the said contention of the complainant nor denied the same in any manner, nor taken any contention that the complainant is still due any amount and therefore, they are not returned to the complainant. Thus, the contention of the complainant and his evidence that the opponent has not returned the R.C. book and the key of the vehicle even after the discharge of the loan amount remained unchallenged. Hence, under these circumstances, we have no other alternative except to hold that the opponent has failed to return the R.C. book and the key of the vehicle even after discharge of the loan amount, inspite of demands made by the complainant and it amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, the opponent is liable to pay the reasonable compensation of Rs.2,000/- and cost of Rs.500/- apart from returning the R.C.book and key of the vehicle to the complainant after making necessary entry in the R.C. book regarding the discharge of the loan amount. Accordingly, we answer the point no.1 partly in the affirmative. 9) Point No.2:- In view of the reasons and finding recorded on the point No.1, we hold that the complaint deserves to be allowed in part as stated above in the ends of justice. Hence, in the final result, we proceed to pass the following, :: O R D E R :: The complaint is allowed in part and the opponent is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.2,000/- and cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant and also opponent is directed to return the R.C.book and key of the vehicle to the complainant after making necessary entry in the R.C. book regarding the discharge of the loan amount. The opponent is directed to comply with the aforesaid order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of failure of the opponent to comply with the said order within the stipulated period of 30 days, the opponent is liable to pay the aforesaid amounts along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment. (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 14th day of October 2010) Member. Member. President. S.R.L/C.K.
