Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/180/2016

Axis Bank Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vijesh Bahadur - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Jain,Adv.

22 Jun 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	180 of 2016
Date of Institution	20.06.2016
Date of Decision	22.06.2016

 

 

Axis Bank Ltd., having its Registered Office at TRISHUL Third Floor, Opp. Samartheshwar Temple, Nr. Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – 380006, through its Authorised Signatory.

Also at:

SCO 350 & 352, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh -160022 (U.T.) through its Authorised Signatory.

                                        …..Appellant/Opposite Party No.1.

Versus

1. Vijesh Bahadur son of Jang Bahadur resident of House No.702, Sector 10, Panchkula – 134109.

                                …..Contesting Respondent/Complainant.

2. State Bank of India, SCO 14, Sector 10, Panchkula 134109 through its Manager.

…..Performa Respondent/Opposite Party No.2.

 

 

BEFORE:JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

 

 

Argued by: Sh. Deepak Jain, Advocate for the appellant.

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.05.2016, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it allowed Consumer Complaint bearing No.336 of 2015, against Opposite Party No.1 only and directed it as under:-

“12. In view of the above discussion, the complainant has produced cogent evidence to prove unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1. We find merit in the complaint and the same is allowed against Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 is directed to:-

[a]    Pay Rs.10,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[b]    Pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation;

            The complaint against Opposite Party No.2 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

13.       The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, Opposite Party No.1 shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] of Para above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from costs of litigation mentioned in sub-para [b] above.”

 

However, the complaint against Opposite Party No.2 was dismissed by the Forum.

2.             The facts, in brief, are that the  complainant purchased one Maruti Alto LXI car from Autopace Limited, Chandigarh in May, 2013 and he took a car loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from Opposite Party No.1 (Axis Bank Ltd.), but the actual amount advanced to him was Rs.1,47,374/- instead of Rs.1,50,000/-. The aforesaid loan amount was to be paid in equated monthly installments of Rs.3,261/- and for the said purpose, the complainant submitted ECS (Annexure C-1), which was filled by Opposite Party No.1, and                 approved by Opposite Party No.2. It was stated that the forms submitted for clearance of ECS were wrongly and negligently filled by either Opposite Party No.1 or Opposite Party No.2 or by their authorized service provider ‘TECHPROCESS’ in the name of a dead joint account holder, who was not a loanee and was no longer account holder, as his name was deleted. It was further stated that due to wrong filling up of ECS forms, the ECS was rejected by State Bank of India (Opposite Party No.2). It was further stated that the complainant, at the time of sanctioning of loan, provided cancelled cheque (Annexure C-5) alongwith passbook (Annexure C-11), which showed his name. It was further stated that as desired by Opposite Party No.1, Opposite Party No.2 issued new cheque book under new guidelines of the Bank but Opposite Party No.2 misprinted the name of Jang Chaudhary instead of the name of the complainant. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 informed the complainant about rejection of ECS vide letter dated 19.07.2013 (Annexure    C-3) and, accordingly, the complainant started paying EMI through cross cheques. It was further stated that unfortunately, Opposite Party No.1 cleared the ECS after some time and levied foreclosure fine upon him (complainant) without informing him. It was further stated that, ultimately, the complainant served notices (Annexures C-6, C-6/A and C-9 and C-9/A) upon the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. It was further stated that aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed seeking various reliefs.

3.     Opposite Party No.1, in its written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that there was discrepancy in the documents filed by the complainant with the answering Opposite Party, as a result whereof, the ECS was made in the name of Jang Chaudhary. It was further stated that the ECS mandate was exactly as per the cancelled cheque submitted by the complainant (Annexure C-5). It was further stated that at the time of submitting the ECS mandate, it was not pointed out by the complainant that there was mismatch in the details of the cheque. It was further stated that copy of the passbook of the complainant (Annexure C-11) showed that his saving account was of year 2007 and he gave a defective cheque leaf to Opposite Party No.1 in the year 2013. It was further stated that the complainant was fully aware of defect in cheque, yet he submitted the same with the answering Opposite Party. It was further stated that the name of account holder showed cutting, which fortified that documents of the complainant were faulty. It was further stated that ECS mandate was subsequently approved, which was communicated to the complainant vide letter (Annexure C-7). It was further stated that any amount deposited by the complainant on his own after starting of the ECS mandate was foreclosure and he never asked Opposite Party No.1 as to whether he should deposit the same. It was further stated that the amount deposited by the complainant was automatically processed by the system as per the Agreement between the parties, treating the same as foreclosure amount. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 was neither deficient, in rendering service nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             Opposite Party No.2, in its written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the matter was between the complainant and Opposite Party No.1 (Axis Bank Ltd.) as Opposite Party No.1 had illegally debited the loan instalment twice from the account of the complainant. It was further stated that the ECS mandate was sent by Opposite Party No.1 in favour of Jang Chaudhary, whose name was already deleted from the account, therefore, the ECS was rightly rejected. It was denied that forms were filled negligently by Opposite Party No.2. It was further stated that the factum of printing the name of account holder as ‘Jang Bahadur’ was never informed by the complainant to Opposite Party No.2 and he also never tried to get the cheque book changed. It was further stated that the complainant kept on using the same cheque book for the reasons best known to him. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 was neither deficient, in rendering service nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.             The complainant filed separate replications to the written statements of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written statements. 

6.             The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.             After hearing the complainant in person, Counsel(s) for Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum allowed the complaint against Opposite Party No.1 only and dismissed the same against Opposite Party No.2, as stated above. 

8.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by Opposite Party No.1.

9.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

10.           After hearing the Counsel for the appellant and going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

11.           It is clearly evident from record that there was no request from the complainant for foreclosure of part of loan amount. It was only when ECS mandate was rejected, that the complainant issued cheque(s) equivalent to amount of instalment(s) i.e. Rs.3,261.00. This was apparently done by the complainant in order to ensure that there was no default in paying the due installment(s) towards loan obtained. By no stretch of imagination, appellant was right in assuming that amount so deposited by way of cheque(s) in the sum of Rs.3,261.00 each for a couple of months, was foreclosure amount. The communication sent by the complainant to appellant on 30.08.2013 was attended to by the appellant belatedly vide undated letter (Annexure C-7) alongwith which, statement of loan account was attached. The statement dated 19.3.2014 (Annexure C-8) indicated that appellant wrongly levied foreclosure penalty in the sum of Rs.329/-, Rs.173/-, Rs.173/- and Rs.329/-. Opposite Party No.2 has also clearly stated in its written statement that the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 had illegally debited the loan installment twice from the loan account of the complainant. Since foreclosure penalty was wrongly imposed, on receipt of notice/representation of the complainant, in all fairness, appellant ought to have straightened the account of complainant and refunded the same (foreclosure penalty). The appellant was, thus, deficient in rendering service.

12.           The Forum has appropriately discussed the issue qua foreclosure penalty in Para 11 of the impugned order, which is extracted hereunder:-

“11.          Now, as far as the second allegation of the Complainant is concerned, the Opposite Party No.1 has miserably failed to produce on record any documentary evidence, much less in the shape of any instructions/ rules governing it, to show that it (OP No.1) is well within its right to charge foreclosure charges from the Complainant, particularly in the absence of any such request (foreclosure) made by the Complainant. Also, there is nothing on record to infer that the amount deposited by the Complainant can automatically be processed by the system as per the agreement between the parties treating the same as foreclosure amount. Hence, we find the Opposite Party No.1 deficient in rendering proper services to the Complainant on this score.”

13.           Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Forum rightly allowed the complaint against the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, by directing it to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation.

14.        Thus, the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

15.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the Forum is upheld.

16.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

17.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

June 22,  2016.

 [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 (DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

rb