Complaint no.332 of 22.5.2008. Date of Order 1.4.2009.
1- Ram Bawa s/o Dwarka Dass;
2- Dwarka Dass s/o late Sh. Kapoor Chand;
3- Chander Kanta w/o Sh. Dwarka Dass,

All rs/o 1176/7, St. No.7, Vishnu Puri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.

….Complainants.
Versus

1- Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited, 15, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana 141021(Punjab) through authorized signatory.


2- Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd., Khandsa Road, near Sector 10-A, Gurgaon through authorized signatory.


3- Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi through its Governor.

….Opposite parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:
Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.
Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.

Present: Sh. M.S. Sethi Adv. for the complainant.
Sh. S.K. Saxena Adv. for opposite parties no.1 & 2.
Complaint against opposite party no.3 dismissed.

O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:



1- After charging Rs.11530/- as processing fee, opposite party no.1 sanctioned loan of Rs.5,14,000/- to the complainants vide letter dated 8.12.2006 @ 13% interest p.a. floating against monthly installments of Rs.7675/- for 120 months, commencing from 5.1.2007 to 51.2016. They were assigned loan account no. HLAP60300000177268. Subsequently, opposite party of their own issued letter dated 10.3.2007, revising terms and conditions of the loan, enhancing rate of interest to 13.75%, w.e.f. 5.1.2007 and handed over the revised pre EMI schedule to the complainant. Subsequently, vide letter dated 15.5.2007, disclosed rate of interest 14.75%. Such act of opposite party, by enhancing arbitrary and illegally, the rate of interest on the borrowed amount, stands assailed by way of filing the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and claimed that opposite party can not claim interest beyond agreed rate of interest 13% p.a. and enhanced rate of interest deserves to be set aside and they be awarded compensation of Rs.1 lac and litigation costs of Rs.11000/-.


2- Opposite parties no.1 & 2 in reply, claimed that this Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint; complainants have not come with clean hands and dispute can not be decided by the Fora, as intricate questions are involved therein. Granting of loan to the complainant, as alleged, is admitted. But claimed that the loan was granted and documents executed by the complainants. They had agreed to pay variable rate of interest on the borrowed amount. Hence, letter dated 15.5.2007 was rightly issued to the complainants. There is no negligence on their part. Interest agreed was floatable.



3- Opposite party no.3- Reserve Bank of India vide separate reply in the shape of affidavit, claimed that no cause of action arose against them to the complainant. Complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties, is mis-conceived and devoid of merits.



4- Contesting parties adduced evidence in support of their claims by way of affidavit and documents. We have heard ld. counsel for parties and have also gone through the record.



5- Outrightly, we may state that complaint against opposite party no.3 is not at all maintainable, nor opposite party no.3 is a necessary or proper party to the complaint. As loan was obtained by the complainant from opposite party no.1, under agreement with which, opposite party no.3 has nothing to do. So, complaint against opposite party no.3 is outrightly dismissed.



6- Now we shall advert to main relief whether interest agreed by the complainant on the loan was floating or fixed, because obtaining of loan by the complainant from opposite party no.1 and disbursing the same under banker cheque Ex.C2 dated 30.11.2006 for Rs.5,14,000/- is admitted. However, version of the complainant is that under sanction letter Ex.C3 dated 20.11.2006, rate of interest payable was mentioned as 13% and the rate prevalent at the time of disbursement will be changed on the loan. He says at the time of disbursement of the loan, rate of interest agreed was 13% and beyond 13%, opposite party is not competent charge the interest. But complainant forgets to note that under letter Ex.C3, it is mentioned that rate of interest is


variable.



7- Consequently, vide letter Ex.C4 dated 15.5.2007, rate of interest was demanded by opposite party @ 14.75% and in letter Ex.C5 dated 8.12.2006, the bank intimated complainant that rate of interest was 13% floating.



8- In agreement Ex.R1, rate of interest on the transaction is also mentioned as floating interest. Execution of this agreement between the parties, is not denied alongwith demand promissory note Ex.R6 and declaration Ex.R7.



9- So, it is apparent that under the agreement, rate of interest on the borrowed amount, was agreed to be paid by the complainant on “Floating Rates”. No doubt, when loan amount was sanctioned, it carried interest @ 13% p.a., but in the sanction letter Ex.C3, interest was shown as variable.



10- Therefore, when rate of interest varied subsequently, opposite party was entitled to realize the enhanced rate of interest under agreement with the complainant. On behalf of opposite party, it was conceded that variable or floating interest means that whenever interest increases, bank would be entitled to charge enhanced rate of interest and in case of decrease, would be bound to decrease the rate of interest. We fully share this contention of the opposite party, being in conformity with agreement between the parties.


11- Hence, finding no merits in the complaint, we dismiss the same. But before parting with the file, would observe that in case, floating rate of interest decreases, opposite party would be bound to charge decreasing interest on the borrowed amount, as prevalent at the time of decrease of the rate of interest.

Kuldeep Singh s/o Abhi Singh village Harion Khurd, Tehsil Samrala, Distt. Ludhiana.
….Complainants.
Versus

Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd. now known as HDFC Bank Ltd., Chandigarh Road, Samrala, Ludhiana through authorized signatory.
….Opposite party.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:
Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.
Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.

Present: Sh. M.S. Sethi Adv. for the complainant.
Opposite party exparte.

O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1- Complainant opened new bank account known as “Golden Account”, after being persuaded by representative of the opposite party bank. He was allotted account no.2AS814105448, termed as SB gold universal. This account, later on, was changed as SB gold universal RET and account no.119401000013322. He opened the account by depositing Rs.10,000/- on 20.12.2006 with opposite party, out of which, Rs.500/- were withdrawn on 1.1.2007. On 30.1.2007, Rs.5000/- more were deposited in his account. In his statement dated 2.3.2007 of the account, balance of Rs.14,570/- was shown in his account upto 17.12.2008. Subsequently, complainant obtained statement dated 9.12.2008 of his account from opposite party and came to know that a sum of Rs.1100/- per quarter from 1.4.2007 to 31.8.2008, have been deducted from his account. Hence, they had deducted total Rs.1100 x 6 =6600 from his account. Protested qua such deduction. Opposite party replied that it was done as under golden type account, if amount deposited falls below Rs.20000/-, such penalty is recoverable. He as such by filing this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has assailed such act of opposite party, by deducting Rs.6600/- from his account, to be illegal, arbitrary, null and void. Has sought directions to refund Rs.6600/- in his account and pay him compensation of Rs.25000/- and Rs.3500/- as litigation costs.


2- Complaint not contested by opposite party and is being proceeded against exparte.


3- Complainant in his exparte evidence, tendered own affidavit Ex.CA1 alongwith statement Ex.C1 to Ex.C3. Heard through counsel.


4- This version as sworn on oath by the complainant, is authenticated and corroborated from statement Ex.C2 dated 9.12.2008. He says that bank on 6 times between 30th June, 2007 to 30th September, 2008, deducted Rs.1100/- each from his account, on ground recorded as “bank induced”. We have no reason to disbelieve complainant that this was done by opposite party, on ground that minimum Rs.20000/- was to be kept in the account. But this does not appear to be condition for opening the account in that account. As statement of account Ex.C1 shows that complainant was permitted to open his account under that scheme, by depositing Rs.10000/-. Without minimum amount of Rs.20000/- to be deposited, they would not have accepted under the scheme, Rs.10000/- from the complainant. As such, it appears that opposite party was guilty of resorting to unfair trade practice, by deducting illegally and arbitrarily, six times a sum of Rs.1110/- each from his account.




5- Therefore, we allow this complaint and as a result, direct opposite party to credit Rs.6600/-, as claimed in the complaint by the complainant, to his SB account within 30 days of receipt of copy of order and also to pay him compensation and litigation costs compositely assessed at Rs.3000/-.

C.C.No.09/2008

Between:
M.A.N.N. Srikanth,
S/o. M.Srimannarayanamurthy,
Advocate, Kaspa Street,
Rajahmundry. ... Complainant.

A N D

1. The Branch Manager,
Centurian Bank Limited,
Ground Floor, Silver Villow,
Daba Gardens, Visakhapatnam.

2. The Representative,
Centurian Bank,
C/o. Reddy Babu Motors,
Near RTC Complex,
Rajahmundry. ...Opposite parties.
This case is coming on 17.04.2009 for final hearing before this Forum and upon perusing the complaint, version of the opposite parties and other material papers on hand and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D.Veerraju, advocate for the complainant and of Sri B.Satyanarayana, advocate for the 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party being set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum has pronounced the following.

O R D E R

(By Sri A.Madhusudana Rao, Member)
The complainant filed this complaint under section.12 of C.P.Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to return all the material papers and to issue clearance certificate, to pay the damages to tune of Rs.65,000/- and to grand other reliefs.



2. The brief averments made in the complaint are that the complainant purchased one Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle on 15.7.2004 for which the 2nd opposite party herein arranged finance for an amount of Rs.34,000/- being the total cost of the vehicle to be paid in 18 equal monthly installments at Rs.2,123/-. The complainant issued 18 post dated cheques each for Rs.2,123/- on Vijaya Bank, Rajahmundry on 15.7.2004 and took delivery of the motorcycle on the same day. Further the complainant issued 16 post dates cheques in one account and two post dated cheques in another account i.e the last two cheques being for 17th and 18th installments. But, as the complainant not operating the 2nd account he sent the 17th installment amount by DD bearing No.563592, Dt.6.12.2005 on Andhra Bank and 18th installment amount by DD of bearing No.097676 Dt.4.1.2006 of State Bank of India. After payment the complainant requested the 1st opposite party to return all the material papers and to issue clearance certificate since the complainant cleared all the dues. Inspite of repeated demands to the opposite parties they failed to return the material papers and issued clearance certificate. On that the complainant finally got issued legal notice Dt.19.6.2007 and the opposite parties received the same, but kept quite. The opposite parties are bound to return all the papers to the complainant, but they failed to do so which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.

3. The 1st opposite party filed its version denying all the material allegations made in the complaint. The complaint itself bad in law and not maintainable on facts and shall be dismissed in liminy. It is submitted that the complainant himself approached this bank for finance to purchase the vehicle and this opposite party arranged for Rs.34,000/- and agreed to pay the same with interest. It is true that the complainant issued two cheques on different banks for 17th and 18th installment payments. It is further submitted that as per the procedure after entering the agreement with the customer all the relevant documents with cheques were sent to out head office for same custody and realization of installments. It is further submitted that the complainant never intimated that he was not having sufficient funds in those banks and those two cheques were bounced due to insufficient funds. But the complainant kept quite till the due date of installments and he sent DDs which indicates the negligent attitude of the complainant.
It is further submitted that the complainant never approached the opposite parties for clearance of his account, but made frivolous allegations against the opposite party. Further, utmost care has been taken in finalization of his account and the amount shown as outstanding in the complainants account was rectified and regularized the transaction and the same was informed to the complainant and details were sent to head office for issuance of clearance and no objection certificate to the complainant. Had the complainant given the cheques in correct way, delay could not be happened in settling his account and as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party. The opposite party issued no objection certificate and the same was sent to the complainant in the month of February, 2006. So, it is submitted that the complainant with a mallafide intention only making unnecessary allegations against this opposite parties. Hence, the Honourable Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.



4. Heard both the parties. Both parties filed their written arguments.



5. Points to be considered in this case are that;

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim amounts and other
reliefs asked for? If so, to what extent?



6. Exs.A.1 to A.15 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Ex.B.1 is marked on behalf of the opposite parties.


7. Admitted facts in this case are that the complainant purchased Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle on 15.7.2004 from Reddybabu motors, Rajahmundry by obtaining vehicle finance to a tune of Rs.34,000/- from the 2nd opposite party and issued 18 cheques each for Rs.2.123/- towards equally monthly installments. As the second account was not in operation the complainant made payment through DDs with regard to 17th and 18th installment amount. Ex.A.3 and A.4 are letters Dt.6.12.2005 and 6.1.2006 with regard to payment of EMI through DDs. The final installment was paid on 4.1.2006 and the complainant requested the opposite parties through his letter Vide Ex.A.10, Dt.1.3.2006 for return of material papers and clearance certificate. The complainant got issued registered notice Dt.19.6.2007 vide Ex.B.13 to the opposite parties and the same were received by the opposite parties vide Ex.A.14 and A.15.




8.POINT NO.1: The case of the complainant is that though the complainant repaid the finance amount of Rs.34,000/- obtained from the opposite parties vide 18 installments, the opposite parties failed to return all the material papers pertaining to the deal and clearance certificate.
Whereas, the opposite parties contended that the complainant paid the last two installments through DDs as the earlier cheques issued by the complainant towards 17th and 18th installments were bounced due to insufficient funds in the complainant’s account. So that, they sent the information regarding settlement of account of the complainant to their head office belatedly. The opposite parties further contended that they have already settled the account of the complainant and sent the clearance certificate to the complainant during the month of February, 2006 and the late is because of the complainant’s own action.
On perusal of the entire record and upon hearing both sides and upon going through the written arguments filed by both the parties, we found that the complainant repaid the entire amount by 4.1.2006 and the same was received by 12.1.2006 by the opposite parties as per Ex.B.1 filed by the opposite parties. It is further found that eve the due amount of Rs.1,944/- was waived off by the opposite parties and his account was closed on 12.1.2006 itself. But, there is no constructive evidence that the opposite parties issued the no objection certificate to the complainant in the month of February, 2006 itself.
So, we are in the considered opinion that the opposite parties failed to issue the no objection certificate to the complainant though the complainant paid the finance amount way back in 12.1.2006. It is further found that the complainant wrote Ex.A.3,A.7,A.10 and Ex.A.13 notice in this regard to the opposite parties and the same were received by the opposite parties vide acknowledgments, but revealed no action was taken by them to return the material papers if any and clearance certificate which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.




9.POINT NO.2: In the result, the complaint of the complainant is allowed directing the opposite parties to return the material papers and issue finance clearance certificate to the complainant and further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards damages and Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) toward costs.

C.C.No.81/2007

T.S.Swaminathan

S/o. Subramanyan

Therayamkode House

Ezhakkad

Mundur Post

Palakkad. - Complainant

(Adv.Rajesh.M )

V/s

1. Branch Manager

Centurian Bank of Punjab Ltd

Suharsha Towers

Ground Floor

Thrissur.

(Adv. K. Sunilkumar & Kamalchand.B)

2. FRM , Centurain Bank of Punjab Ltd

Suharsha Towers

Ground Floor

Thrissur. - Opposite Parties

(Adv. K. Sunilkumar & Kamalchand.B)

O R D E R

By Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member


Case of the complainant in brief is as follows


The complainant has availed vehicle loans from the opposite parties for purchasing two vehicles registered as KL-9-T-5122 Tempo Mini Door for an amount of Rs.3,92,000/- and Ashok Leyland Bus registeration No. KL-9-U-1282 for Rs.14,94,000/-. The EMI for Tempo Minidoor and bus is Rs.9,916/- and Rs.38,000/- respectively. As per the agreement the complainant has given 48 post dated cheques for EMI. The complainant has purchased the vehicle for earning his livelihood by way of transport service. The complainant was regular in payment of monthly instalments. According to the complainant with a malafide intention to get unjust enrichment, the Opposite party has taken two payments through cheque for an amount of Rs.38,000/- each into the EMI of the tempo minidoor. Upto the month of May' 2007, the complainant has to pay 14 total monthly instalments of Rs.9,916/-
- 2 -
and it comes to Rs.1,38,824/-. Up to the month of 25.05.07, the complainant herein has paid 16 monthly installments. The Opposite parties have willfully taken instalments which are paid towards the due of the bus, towards the account of tempo minidoor. The say of the complainant is that the amount which is taken into the account of the tempo minidoor is not reflecting in the accounts of the opposite parties. The opposite parties computed over due charges and excess interest and cheque bouncing charges illegally upon the account. The complainant had remitted 13 monthly installments for the period of 15/06/2006 till 31/05/2007 towards the Ashok Leyland bus. If the 2 installments remitted by the complainant has not been withheld in the account of the tempo minidoor, there will not be any default as alleged in the account statement of the Opposite parties. Thereafter for correcting the fault the complainant contacted the opposite parties on various occasions. They did not rectify their mistake but threatened the complainant saying, they will repossess both the vehicles of the complainant. All these acts of the Opposite parties are clear deficiency of service. The complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.7,964/-. Hence the complaint. The complainant prays for an order directing the Opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings and to rectify the irregularities in the accounts .


The contentions of Opposite parties are as follows:


The Opposite parties admitted that the complainant had availed two vehicle loan for purchasing Tempo mini door and Ashok Leyland bus. The EMI for the bus, Rs.38,000/- has to be paid on 15th of every month and is having 48 installments. Also the EMI for the Tempo Mini door, Rs.9,916/- has to be paid on 25th of every month and is having 47 installments. The opposite parties stated that initially the complainant was a defaulter and later only he started to pay the installments. Further the Opposite parties contented that the installment of Rs.38,000/- for September 2006 for the bus was wrongly taken into the account of the tempo and immediately knowing the mistake the Ist opposite party cleared the same.

According to the Opposite parties, the complainant has not suffered any loss of Rs.7,964/-. The opposite parties stated that from 2007 February onwards the cheques given for the payments of Bus were returned due to insufficient funds and the cheques for tempo from 2007 March onwards also returned because of insufficient funds in the account of the complainant. The opposite parties submitted that the mistake of crediting wrongly in another account was on the very same day rectified by the 1st Opposite party. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
- 3 -
parties. The complainant had caused a huge loss to the opposite party by non payment of monthly instalments. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.


Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents. Exhibit A1 & A2 marked. Opposite parties filed proof affidavit. Matter was heard.
Points considered by us:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?

Point No.1
We perused relevant documents on record. The Opposite parties admitted that the instalment for the bus on 2006 September for an amount of Rs.38,000/- was wrongly taken into the account of the tempo and immediately knowing the mistake the Opposite parties had cleared that mistake. But according to the complainant for correcting the fault the complainant contacted the opposite parties on various occasions and they did not rectify their mistakes, but threatened the complainant saying that they will repossess both the vehicles of the complainant. Since the mistake committed was admitted by the opposite parties and clearing of the mistake on the same day as stated by the opposite parties is not proved, we hold the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled for compensation
Point No. 2
According to the complainant, he suffered a loss of Rs.7,964/- on account of the mistake on the part of the opposite parties. The same is not proved by the complainant. We are of the view that an amount of Rs.3,000/- as compensation will meet the ends of justice.


In the result complaint allowed. Opposite parties are directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service together with Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till realization.

ORDER ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.

The complainant filed this complaint for getting compensation and cost from the opp.parties.

The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:

On 26.2.2006 the complainant purchased a Hero Honda CD Deluxe motor cycle having Reg.No. is KL-02/Y 466 having Chassis No.06B 29 F 02326 and Engine No.06B 29E 02436. Complainant made an initial payment of Rs.12,400/- [Rupees Twelve Thousand and four Hundred only]. For the rest of the amount, the complainant took a vehicle loan from Centurion Bank of Punjab, Syam Scion, Law College Road, PMG Jn., Trivandrum for buying the above said vehicle. The loan amount was Rs.31,350/- with an EMI of Rs.1053/- for 35 months. The complainant issued 3 cheques of UTI Bank, Kollam and 33 cheques of ICICI Bank, Kollam. The complainant paid 3 EMI through UTI Bank cheques. The complainant requested the 1st opp.party to replace the remaining No. of cheques of ICICI Bank with UTI Bank. So the 1st opp.party unlawfully demanded Rs.1500/- as service charge from the complainant During the 1st week of May, 2007 2nd opp.party’s collection executive informed the complainant over mobile phones the complainant made default 7 EMI and the complainant shall pay penalty for direct payment and defaulted payment amount to Rs.5,600/- As per the directions of the Reserve Bank of India, the charge for bouncing a cheque is Rs.65/- only The complainant agreed to pay 2 EMI’s together in 28.5.2007 and the remaining EMI’s in consecutive months. After that the complainant approached the respondents, for payment then the opp.parties directed the complainant to pay penalty for direct payments, defaulted payments and Repo charge. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.


Hence the complaint
The complainant was examined in chief as PW.1 and marked ext.P1 to P3. Opp.parties though filed version, they did not make any attempt to prove what was stated in the version. Hence the Forum was constrained to accept the case of the complainant. That opp.parties did not care to adduce any oral or documentary evidence at all. Hence the opp.parties are deficient in service.

The complainant could prove his case through the complaint, affidavit, deposition in chief and the exhibits marked. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost from the opp.parties

In the result the complaint is allowed. The opp.parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant The opp.parties are also directed to pay Rs.500/- as cost of the proceedings. The order is to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

Basheer F.H.

S/o. Hussain S.H,

Nethra Opticals,

Mahadevpet,

Madikeri.



OPPOSITE PARTY/S:



1. The Manager,

Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd.,

V.V. Mohalla,

Mysore.



2. B.S.M Associates,

Authorised Collecting Firm,

Near C.C.L. Petrol Bunk,

Kushalnagar,

Kodagu District.


O R D E R


1. That the complainant purchased a Yamaha Bike on 27-4-2006 by obtaining loan from O.P.1 for Rs.31,220/- agreeing to pay the loan amount by 23 installments of Rs.1,290/- and also delivered 23 post dated cheques to the opposite party no.1.


2. That some of the cheques issued in favour of O.P 1 were honored and some of them were dishonored for want of sufficient funds in his account. When ever the opposite party no.1 has encashed the cheque; have issued the receipts in favour of the complainant and thus the complainant has cleared entire loan and the opposite party is bound to issue clearance certificate and all the documents which were handed over to them at the time of obtaining loan; to the complainant.


3. That on 12-12-2007 the complainant received the notice calling upon him to clear the debt and as the complainant had paid all the arrears he informed O.P 1 that nothing is due from his side and also demanded O.P 1 to issue statement of account, which is reproduced in the complaint.


4. That on 8-5-2008 the complainant had cleared all the arrears and insisted O.P 1 to issue clearance certificate and to hand over the original documents which are in the custody of O.P1.

5. That on 9-1-2009 the complainant issued a notice calling upon O.P 1 to comply the request as stated in the previous paragraph but till the date of filing the complaint his request of issuing clearance certificate and of handing over documents to him has not been complied by O.P 1. Therefore, he has been compelled to approach the Forum by filing this complaint and prayed for following relief;


a) Direction to O.P 1 to issue no clearance certificate and to handover the documents and compensation for he being put to mental agony and the court cost.


6. The complainant has produced the letter addressed to O.P 1 and the account statement issued from O.P 1 to the complainant and the Xerox copy of the receipts for having received the installments towards loan (14 in numbers ) and acknowledgements for having sent the notice to O.P 1 and another letter addressed to the advocate of O.P 1 and copy of the notice issued from one E.S. Bhemeesh, Advocate, to the complainant and another copy of the letter issued from O.P 1 to the opposite party calling upon the complainant to pay the amount in respect of dishonoured chques i.e., 2,580 +400 fine.


7. Having admitted the complaint notice was ordered to be issued to O.P 1 and 2.


8. O.P 2 was placed exparte as he did not appear on the date prescribed for his presence. O.P 1 appeared through his advocate and has taken following contentions through version filed by him.


1. That pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation between Centurion Bank, Punjab Limited and HDFC Bank Limited duly approved by Reserve Bank of India and as the resultant combined antity is known as HDFC Bank Limited with effect from 23-5-2008.

2. That the present complaint filed for deficiency for service is false, baseless and not maintainable either in law or in facts and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed with cost.

3. That the complainant is a defaulter in paying monthly installment. Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning and definition of Consumer Protection Act.


4. That the complainant is a customer of the bank and he has availed a financial assistance from the 1st opposite party for the purchase of two wheeler Yamaha Crux vehicle and as per the loan agreement entered in to between the complainant and opponent, the opposite party bank has sanctioned a loan of Rs.31,220/- on 27-4-2006 and as per the terms and conditions contained in the agreement the entire loan amount along with the interest shall be payable in 24 monthly installments of Rs.1,290/- each without any default.


5. That the complainant has given 23 blank post dated cheques to repay 23 installments of Rs.1,290/- each at the time of sanctioning loan are not correct but denied as false.

6. That the complainant has made few payments through cheques and cash is true but it is false to state that the complainant has made all the payments promptly.


7. That the cheques issued by the complainant towards the payment monthly installments are returned without payment is true and few cheques are cleared is true, but the allegations that the complainant has received receipts for cash payment made to the loan account from 2nd opposite party is also true.


8. That the account status produced by the complainant is incorrect and false and it is specifically submitted that as per the records maintained by the bank the complainant due and liable to pay Rs.15,645/- as on 28-4-2009. The statement of account is attached to the version.


9. That the allegations made in para 5 that the complainant has paid the entire loan amount on 8-4-2008 is hereby denied as false and incorrect statements and therefore the complainant is put to strict proof of each of the allegations made in the complaint.

10. That the complainant contrary to agreed terms and conditions contained in the agreement, has committed a default and as stated above he is still due and liable to pay a sum of Rs.15,645/- (rupees fifteen thousand six hundred and forty five only) towards the full and final settlement of the accounts and therefore issuing no objection certificate does not arise at all.

11. That the allegations that due to the acts of the opposite party the complainant has suffered a mental harassment and loss are all denied as false and vexatious allegations made only for the purpose of this case. There is no deficiency of services on the part of opponents.

12. There is no cause of action to the complaint and the alleged cause of action is false.

9. Therefore the opposite party has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

10.The opposite party has produced the statement of account dated 28-4-2009 in respect of complainant and also the copy of the order in respect of amalgamation of both the banks.

11. The complainant has also produced the following additional documents;

1. Loan repayment details

2. Xerox copy of the bank pass book

3. Xerox copy of the receipts – 14 in nos.

4. Copy of the statement of loan account dated 28-12-2007.

5. Copy of the letter issued by the complainant.

6. A.D. Card.

12. The complainant and O.P1 have filed their affidavit evidence in lieu of examination in chief.

13. Having regard to the averments made in the complaint and the defence taken by O.P 1 the following issues arise for consideration.

1. Whether O.P 1 by not issuing clearance certificate and by not handing over the documents to the complainant has committed any deficiency in service?

2. To what order ?

R E A S O N S

14. The Complainant has produced the statement of accounts at the time of filing his complaint which does not bear the seal or signature of opposite party bank. However the complainant has produced the receipts passed on by O.P bank. On perusal of the same the total amount towards installment comes to Rs.20,430/-and the total cheque bounce charges paid by the complainant is Rs.3,000/- in all the complainant has paid Rs.23,430/- only.


15. The opposite party has also produced the statement of accounts with the seal of the bank and according to them the complainant is still due to the bank of Rs.15,645/- as on 28-4-2009 and on perusal of the account statement and other documents the same cannot be disputed but according to the complainant, he is not anything due to the bank and every installment is paid even after bouncing of the cheque the amount mentioned in the cheque has been paid in cash when the concerned person from the bank has approached him.


16. It is submitted by the advocate for the complainant that as per the receipts relied by the complainant the complainant is nothing due to the opposite party bank and the complainant is entitled for the relief prayed for.


17. As against the above submission made by the complainant’s advocate O.Ps advocate by relying on the loan agreement, loan disbursement cheque list, loan application form, dealer receipt, statement of accounts; complainant is still due to the bank to the extent of Rs.13,079/-, which has not been paid by the complainant and therefore, clearance certificate, and the documents relating to the vehicle cannot be delivered to the complainant.


18. Statement of account and the receipts have been perused, but the complainant has failed to establish that he is nothing due to the Centurion bank when such is the case no relief can be granted to the complainant.


19. It may not be out of place to mention here that the bank official who is present in court submitted that the bank is prepared to give some concession to the complainant, for which the complainant is not ready to accept the offer, but stuck to his averments in the complaint.

20. The complainant no doubt has been consistently saying that nothing is due from him to the bank, but in support of his averments or allegations the complainant has not produced any documentary proof but contrarily the statement of account filed by the opposite party bank do suggest that Rs.13,079/- is still due from the complainant including cheque return charges, 3% delay payment charges and legal charges though the total EME overdue is only Rs.2,580/- .

However on perusal of the statement of accounts though the complainant has paid Rs.3,000/- towards cheque return charges but again Rs.4,410/- is shown towards the same which is not correct. But however as per the terms of agreement the complainant is liable to pay 3% delay payment charges which comes to Rs.3,389/-. When the complainant has entered in to an agreement with the bank to that effect now he cannot take a round and say that he is not liable to pay that amount. If Rs.3,000/- amount paid towards cheque returned charges already is deducted from Rs.4,410/- (as per the account statement ) which comes to Rs.1,110/- only.

21. Thus the complainant is due to the bank as follows;


a) Total EMI over due 1290X2 =2580

b) Cheque returned charges 1,110

c) 3% delay payment charges 3,589

d) Legal charges 2,500

----------

Total due from the complainant to the bank 9,779

=======

22. Therefore, it can be said that the complainant is liable to pay above amount not as claimed by O.P 1.


23. It is also pertinent to note that bank has not charged any interest for the loan as per the scheme, no interest is levyable .


24. Having regard to the above analysis without clearing the dues the complainant is not entitled for any relief and the opposite party bank cannot be directed to issue clearance certificate and the documents pledged by the complainant with the bank at the time of obtaining the loan, as per the loan agreement. Hence it can be said that the complainant has not succeeded in establishing his case and consequently it cannot be held that the opposite party bank has committed deficiency in service in the result we answer point no.1 negatively and proceed to pass the following order.


O R D E R

The complaint is dismissed. The parties to bear their own cost.

H.S. Gill (Harjeet Singh Gill) Alias H.S. Kanwal (Harjeet Singh Kanwal) s/o Late Colonel S.S. Gill (Late Colonel Sh. Saudagar Singh Gill) R/o H.No.300/100, Block-J, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana.

…..Complainant.

Versus





The Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, through its Authorized Signatory.

…..Opposite party.







O R D E R








1- By way of present complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, case put up by the complainant, is that he on 7th April, 2004, purchased a motorcycle in the name of his grandson Sh. J.S. Gill. The bike was got financed from opposite party bank, vide agreement no.2030G47590561. Complainant stood guarantor for repayment of the loan and issued 36 post dated cheques, in favour of opposite party, qua his saving bank account no.1000727005-6 of State Bank of India, Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana. But on 11.10.2006, agent of opposite party approached and told complainant that his post dated cheque bearing no.858455 was dishonoured, for want of funds in his account and requested to issue another cheque of Rs.1195/-, alongwith cheque bouncing charges Rs.400/-. Complainant then put off the said agent till the matter verified and sought evidence qua proof of bouncing of his cheque. He provided no proof, nor turned up thereafter.


Then, complainant approached State Bank of India, qua his account and came to know that cheque no.858455 dated 5.10.2006 was never dishonoured, nor the cheque was ever deposited for payment and that he had sufficient amount of Rs.9798/- in his account from September, to October, 2006. Opposite party, as such, have not submitted his cheque and through its agent, made false claim of it being dishonoured. Subsequently on 17.9.2007, another agent of opposite party named Sh. G.S. Channi handed him over a letter, showing a sum of Rs.3619/- due on account of bouncing of cheques. Complainant again informed him that all his cheques have been cleared by his banker and none was dishonoured. Sought proof from him, but he failed to furnish any such proof from him, but he failed to furnish any such proof qua dishonouring of the cheque.


Thereafter, received notice dated 12.11.2007 served by opposite party through their counsel Sh. Sanjeev Sagar. In that notice, opposite party claimed that 7 post dated cheques issued by the complainant to opposite party bank, have bounced and was required to pay Rs.11,665/- including bouncing charges and advocate fee. Such notice was false, as no cheque of the complainant was ever bounced. Because complainant had been maintaining proper funds in his account and allegations are absolutely vogues and false. Such allegations caused tremendous mental tension, agony and sufferance to the complainant. Thereafter, opposite sent three agents to residence of complainant on 16.6.2008.


They required complainant to clear dues, as per legal notice issued by the bank. He intimated them that out of 36 post date cheques, 35 have been encashed by opposite party, except one cheque bearing no.858455 dated 5th October, 2006. Because they have failed to put up that cheque in the bank. So, claimed in this complaint that opposite party has been harassing him with false allegations, claiming that his cheques have been bounced, though out of 36, had encashed 35 cheques, served false and illegal notice, to injure his reputation and causing harm to him, which amounts to deficiency in service. Consequently, claimed compensation of Rs.5 lacs from them.

2- Opposite party in reply, averred that complaint is not maintainable, complainant has not come with clean hands, this Fora has no jurisdiction, to try the complaint, complainant has no locus standi to file complaint and the matter raised can only be decided by civil court. They denied any deficiency in service on their part. However, purchase of bike by grandson of the complainant and financing the same, is admitted by opposite party. But claimed that a sum of Rs.1326/- towards one installment and Rs.1023/- towards delayed payment/overdue charges, are payable by complainant and unless and until, he pays the same, not entitled for NOC. They averred that complainant was simply a guarantor, so not empowered, to file complaint. Other allegations have been denied, by claiming that no agent or representative of opposite party bank, ever contacted complainant for payment of installments.


Qua it, he has concocted a false story. Sending of legal notice dated 12.11.207, is admitted. But claimed that when it struck to them that excess amount in the notice, was claimed, they sent another letter dated 3.12.2007, withdrawing the notice, apologizing to the complainant and intimated him that legal notice has been withdrawn and cancelled. It is denied that three persons were deputed by opposite party, to the house of complainant, for collection. They have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3- To prove their respective pleadings, both parties adduced evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents.

4- We have heard arguments addressed by the complainant in person, ld. counsel for opposite party-bank and minutely scanned entire material placed on the file.

5- It is admitted that motorcycle was purchased by Sh. J.S. Gill, grandson f the complainant and the same was financed by opposite party. Complainant stood guarantor, for repayment of the loan. Complainant for satisfaction of the loan, had deposited 36 post dated cheques of Rs.1195/- each, in favour of the opposite party bank, pertaining to his State Bank of India account. It is in view of these admitted aspects, question for determination whether any or few of such post dated cheques issued by complainant in favour of opposite party, got bounced and consequently, he failed to clear the loan amount.

6- But before we venture to discuss aforesaid point in issue, would like to refer objection of opposite party that complainant has no locus standi, to file the complaint. It is argued on behalf of opposite party that loan agreement was with grandson of the complainant and there was no agreement with the complainant, so he is not empowered, to file the complaint, without any authority from his grandson. No doubt, complainant being grandfather of the loanee Sh. J.S. Gill, is not empowered by his grandson, to file this complaint. But fact still remains that complainant, as guarantor of the loan, had given 36 post dated cheques from his account to opposite party bank, to satisfy their loan amount.


Resultantly, in case of dishonouring of the cheque or cheques, it was complainant, who was to share the legal blame of such dishonouring. Such allegations of the complainant, which we have no reasons to disbelieve, go to show that collection agents of opposite party had been approaching the complainant time and again, intimating bouncing of cheques and paying the loan amount. In these circumstances, it is the complainant who is hurt by act of opposite party and as a result, in our view, is competent to institute this complaint in his own name.

7- Now adverting to the point whether any of the cheques of the complainant, got dishonoured.

8- First of all, claim of complainant qua which, has also filed his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, is that on 11.10.2006, agent of opposite party intimated him about bouncing of cheque no.858455, requiring him to pay cheque amount with bouncing charges Rs.400/-. He demanded proof of bouncing from that agent, but he never turned up. Then complainant approached his bank (State Bank of India, Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana) and obtained certificate Ex.3 that cheque no.858455 for Rs.1195/- was never debited from his saving bank account, as per the bank record. Ex.4 copy of his statement of account shows that from 29.9.2006 to 1.10.2006, there was clear cut balance of Rs.9798/- in his saving bank account. So, it means this cheque was never presented, for encashment by opposite party and made false allegations that the cheque got bounced.

9- Another allegation of the complainant that on 17.9.2007, agent of opposite party Sh. G.S. Channi came and handed him over a letter, asking to pay Rs.3619/-, due to bouncing of a cheque, also appears to be correct. This allegation of the complainant, is supported by letter Ex.1 dated 17.9.2007 which said Mr. Channi delivered to the complainant. In this letter, a sum of Rs.3619/- was shown due from the complainant.

10- Woes of the complainant did not end there, as there is clear cut material and evidence on the record that out of 36 post dated cheques, so handed over by complainant, to clear the loan account, 35 were encashed by opposite party, as apparent from his bank statement Ex.5. So, means 35 cheques of Rs.1195/- each, which complainant entrusted to opposite party, while furnishing guarantee, for repayment of the loan, were encashed by them. 36th cheque was never presented by opposite party bank to the banker of complainant, for encashment, as discussed in earlier part of the order. It means complainant never defaulted in repayment of the loan installments.


Despite this, opposite party got served legal notice Ex.2 dated 12.11.2007 through their counsel Sagar & Sagar Law Offices. In that notice, opposite party claimed a sum of Rs.11,665/- due form the complainant, inclusive of Rs.8365/- as balance loan amount, Rs.2800/- cheque bouncing charges and Rs.500/- legal notice charges. Issuance of this notice to the complainant, is admitted by opposite party. But their claim is that due to mistake, the notice was issued and when mistake occurred, the notice was withdrawn, by issuing letter dated 3.12.2007, withdrawing notice dated 12.11.2007. This defence and plea of the opposite party palpably and absolutely is false and untrue. Because such letter dated 3.12.2007, withdrawing notice dated 12.11.2007, has not seen light of the day, nor brought on record by the opposite party. It means no such letter, withdrawing notice dated 12.11.2007, was issued.

11- These sequences of events clearly spell that opposite party bank has been very miserably treating the complainant, by making false allegations of dishonouring of his cheques, demanding cheque bouncing charges and balance due amount. For such purposes, had been deputing their henchmen or collection agents to house of the complainant, accusing him of not clearing loan amount and demanding cheque bouncing charges. All such acts on part of opposite party, were deliberate which must have caused harm not only to reputation of the complainant, but also to his prestige, self esteem and honour. Therefore, complainant must have been dismayed, subjected to frustration and disgust, on account of such false allegations, levelled by opposite party. Therefore, opposite party is clearly established to be guilty or resorting to unfair trade practice, to extort extra money from its customer, by hook or crook and use of its muscle power.

12- Therefore, we are constrained to allow this complaint and sequel thereto, direct opposite party, to issue NOC qua loan case of grandson of the complainant and pay him compensation of Rs.8000/-(Rupees Eight Thousand only) for causing harassment to him, alongwith litigation expenses Rs.2000/-. Order be complied within 45 days of receipt of copy of order which be provided to the parties free of charge. File be completed and consigned to record room.

Sowriar

S/o. Devanesan

Muthu pandithakarar Veedu

Ramandichalla

Parassikkal (P.O)

Vadakarappathy Village

Chittur Taluk

Palakkad.

- Complainant




V/s


Centurian Bank Ltd

Rep. By its Bank Manager

Thrissur Branch

Shornur Road

Thrissur - Opposite Party



O R D E R






Complainant purchased one T.V.S. Centra Motor Cycle from the T V S Showroom at Chittur in the year 2004. Finance was arranged by the Opposite party. Complainant paid an amount of Rs.13,000/- directly and rest of the amount was paid by the opposite party from the loan sanctioned. The original bills, Registration C ertificate book, Tax paid receipt, Insurance policy etc was kept by the opposite party since the vehicle was under hire purchase agreement. Several signed undated cheque leaves of the complainant were also obtained by the opposite party.


Complainant was prompt in the payment of the monthly instalments. After paying the whole amount, loan was closed on 31/02/2007. Complainant asked for return of registration certificate, original bills, spare key, insurance policy of the vehicle etc. But opposite party sought time for processing closure of the loan. Repeated demands for the return of the documents by the complainant turned futile. Finally

- 2 -

complainant caused a lawyer notice dated 11/04/2008 to the opposite party demanding return of the original Registeration Certificate book and the spare key to the complainant. Opposite party neither returned the same nor sent any reply. This is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party.




2. Earlier opposite party was set exparte. Exparte order was set asided as per order in IA 156/2008 and version was taken on file.




3. The contentions put forward by Opposite party is as follows:

Opposite party admits the fact that loan account was closed. But the say of the complainant that Registeration Certificate Book and spare key is in the possession of Opposite party is not correct. To the information of the opposite party, complainant has not bought the same from the T V S Agency. Complainant has not impleaded T V S Agency, who is a necessary party in this case. According to Opposite party there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complaint is liable to be dismissed.




4. Complainant filed proof affidavit. Exhibit A1 to A8 marked. At the stage of hearing opposite party filed Interim Application for reopening evidence for filing affidavit. Even though Interim Application was allowed on terms, no affidavit was filed by the opposite party.




5. Now the issues for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party?

2. If so, what is the reliefs and cost?




Point 1

The definite case of the complainant is that opposite party has not returned the Registeration Certificate book and spare key after closure of the loan account. Opposite party admits the fact that loan account was closed but denies the fact that they are in possession of Registeration Certificate book and spare key of the vehicle of the complainant.

- 3 -

There is no dispute as to the closure of the loan account. The only question to be decided is whether the original Registeration Certificate book and spare key of the vehicle of the complainant is with the opposite party. Going through Exhibit A7, lawyer notice dated 11/04/2008, complainant has specifically requested opposite party for return of the same. Opposite party has not replied for the lawyer notice. Moreover it is the usual practice of the financial institutions to keep the spare key, blank cheques and other documents of the vehicle till the closure of the account. Opposite party has not filed any affidavit or adduced any evidence in support of their contentions. Office records showing the documents entrusted with the opposite party at the time of availing loan is also not produced before the forum.




IN the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we are of the view that the deliberate act of non delivery of the Registeration Certificate book and spare key of the complainants vehicle amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.




Point 2

As deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is established, complainant is entitled for compensation. Loan account is seen to be closed on 31/12/2007 itself. We are of the view that an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation will meet the ends of justice.




In the result, complaint allowed. Opposite party directed to return the original RC book and spare key to the complainant together with a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.1,000/-. Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.



Pronounced in the open court on this the 10th day of August , 2009

H.S. Gill (Harjeet Singh Gill) Alias H.S. Kanwal (Harjeet Singh Kanwal) s/o Late Colonel S.S. Gill (Late Colonel Sh. Saudagar Singh Gill) R/o H.No.300/100, Block-J, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana.

…..Complainant.

Versus





The Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, through its Authorized Signatory.

…..Opposite party.







O R D E R







1- By way of present complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, case put up by the complainant, is that he on 7th April, 2004, purchased a motorcycle in the name of his grandson Sh. J.S. Gill. The bike was got financed from opposite party bank, vide agreement no.2030G47590561.


Complainant stood guarantor for repayment of the loan and issued 36 post dated cheques, in favour of opposite party, qua his saving bank account no.1000727005-6 of State Bank of India, Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana. But on 11.10.2006, agent of opposite party approached and told complainant that his post dated cheque bearing no.858455 was dishonoured, for want of funds in his account and requested to issue another cheque of Rs.1195/-, alongwith cheque bouncing charges Rs.400/-. Complainant then put off the said agent till the matter verified and sought evidence qua proof of bouncing of his cheque. He provided no proof, nor turned up thereafter.


Then, complainant approached State Bank of India, qua his account and came to know that cheque no.858455 dated 5.10.2006 was never dishonoured, nor the cheque was ever deposited for payment and that he had sufficient amount of Rs.9798/- in his account from September, to October, 2006. Opposite party, as such, have not submitted his cheque and through its agent, made false claim of it being dishonoured. Subsequently on 17.9.2007, another agent of opposite party named Sh. G.S. Channi handed him over a letter, showing a sum of Rs.3619/- due on account of bouncing of cheques. Complainant again informed him that all his cheques have been cleared by his banker and none was dishonoured. Sought proof from him, but he failed to furnish any such proof from him, but he failed to furnish any such proof qua dishonouring of the cheque.


Thereafter, received notice dated 12.11.2007 served by opposite party through their counsel Sh. Sanjeev Sagar. In that notice, opposite party claimed that 7 post dated cheques issued by the complainant to opposite party bank, have bounced and was required to pay Rs.11,665/- including bouncing charges and advocate fee. Such notice was false, as no cheque of the complainant was ever bounced. Because complainant had been maintaining proper funds in his account and allegations are absolutely vogues and false. Such allegations caused tremendous mental tension, agony and sufferance to the complainant. Thereafter, opposite sent three agents to residence of complainant on 16.6.2008. They required complainant to clear dues, as per legal notice issued by the bank.


He intimated them that out of 36 post date cheques, 35 have been encashed by opposite party, except one cheque bearing no.858455 dated 5th October, 2006. Because they have failed to put up that cheque in the bank. So, claimed in this complaint that opposite party has been harassing him with false allegations, claiming that his cheques have been bounced, though out of 36, had encashed 35 cheques, served false and illegal notice, to injure his reputation and causing harm to him, which amounts to deficiency in service. Consequently, claimed compensation of Rs.5 lacs from them.

2- Opposite party in reply, averred that complaint is not maintainable, complainant has not come with clean hands, this Fora has no jurisdiction, to try the complaint, complainant has no locus standi to file complaint and the matter raised can only be decided by civil court. They denied any deficiency in service on their part. However, purchase of bike by grandson of the complainant and financing the same, is admitted by opposite party. But claimed that a sum of Rs.1326/- towards one installment and Rs.1023/- towards delayed payment/overdue charges, are payable by complainant and unless and until, he pays the same, not entitled for NOC. They averred that complainant was simply a guarantor, so not empowered, to file complaint.


Other allegations have been denied, by claiming that no agent or representative of opposite party bank, ever contacted complainant for payment of installments. Qua it, he has concocted a false story. Sending of legal notice dated 12.11.207, is admitted. But claimed that when it struck to them that excess amount in the notice, was claimed, they sent another letter dated 3.12.2007, withdrawing the notice, apologizing to the complainant and intimated him that legal notice has been withdrawn and cancelled. It is denied that three persons were deputed by opposite party, to the house of complainant, for collection. They have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3- To prove their respective pleadings, both parties adduced evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents.

4- We have heard arguments addressed by the complainant in person, ld. counsel for opposite party-bank and minutely scanned entire material placed on the file.

5- It is admitted that motorcycle was purchased by Sh. J.S. Gill, grandson f the complainant and the same was financed by opposite party. Complainant stood guarantor, for repayment of the loan. Complainant for satisfaction of the loan, had deposited 36 post dated cheques of Rs.1195/- each, in favour of the opposite party bank, pertaining to his State Bank of India account. It is in view of these admitted aspects, question for determination whether any or few of such post dated cheques issued by complainant in favour of opposite party, got bounced and consequently, he failed to clear the loan amount.

6- But before we venture to discuss aforesaid point in issue, would like to refer objection of opposite party that complainant has no locus standi, to file the complaint. It is argued on behalf of opposite party that loan agreement was with grandson of the complainant and there was no agreement with the complainant, so he is not empowered, to file the complaint, without any authority from his grandson. No doubt, complainant being grandfather of the loanee Sh. J.S. Gill, is not empowered by his grandson, to file this complaint. But fact still remains that complainant, as guarantor of the loan, had given 36 post dated cheques from his account to opposite party bank, to satisfy their loan amount.


Resultantly, in case of dishonouring of the cheque or cheques, it was complainant, who was to share the legal blame of such dishonouring. Such allegations of the complainant, which we have no reasons to disbelieve, go to show that collection agents of opposite party had been approaching the complainant time and again, intimating bouncing of cheques and paying the loan amount. In these circumstances, it is the complainant who is hurt by act of opposite party and as a result, in our view, is competent to institute this complaint in his own name.

7- Now adverting to the point whether any of the cheques of the complainant, got dishonoured.

8- First of all, claim of complainant qua which, has also filed his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, is that on 11.10.2006, agent of opposite party intimated him about bouncing of cheque no.858455, requiring him to pay cheque amount with bouncing charges Rs.400/-. He demanded proof of bouncing from that agent, but he never turned up. Then complainant approached his bank (State Bank of India, Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana) and obtained certificate Ex.3 that cheque no.858455 for Rs.1195/- was never debited from his saving bank account, as per the bank record. Ex.4 copy of his statement of account shows that from 29.9.2006 to 1.10.2006, there was clear cut balance of Rs.9798/- in his saving bank account. So, it means this cheque was never presented, for encashment by opposite party and made false allegations that the cheque got bounced.

9- Another allegation of the complainant that on 17.9.2007, agent of opposite party Sh. G.S. Channi came and handed him over a letter, asking to pay Rs.3619/-, due to bouncing of a cheque, also appears to be correct. This allegation of the complainant, is supported by letter Ex.1 dated 17.9.2007 which said Mr. Channi delivered to the complainant. In this letter, a sum of Rs.3619/- was shown due from the complainant.

10- Woes of the complainant did not end there, as there is clear cut material and evidence on the record that out of 36 post dated cheques, so handed over by complainant, to clear the loan account, 35 were encashed by opposite party, as apparent from his bank statement Ex.5. So, means 35 cheques of Rs.1195/- each, which complainant entrusted to opposite party, while furnishing guarantee, for repayment of the loan, were encashed by them. 36th cheque was never presented by opposite party bank to the banker of complainant, for encashment, as discussed in earlier part of the order.


It means complainant never defaulted in repayment of the loan installments. Despite this, opposite party got served legal notice Ex.2 dated 12.11.2007 through their counsel Sagar & Sagar Law Offices. In that notice, opposite party claimed a sum of Rs.11,665/- due form the complainant, inclusive of Rs.8365/- as balance loan amount, Rs.2800/- cheque bouncing charges and Rs.500/- legal notice charges. Issuance of this notice to the complainant, is admitted by opposite party.


But their claim is that due to mistake, the notice was issued and when mistake occurred, the notice was withdrawn, by issuing letter dated 3.12.2007, withdrawing notice dated 12.11.2007. This defence and plea of the opposite party palpably and absolutely is false and untrue. Because such letter dated 3.12.2007, withdrawing notice dated 12.11.2007, has not seen light of the day, nor brought on record by the opposite party. It means no such letter, withdrawing notice dated 12.11.2007, was issued.

11- These sequences of events clearly spell that opposite party bank has been very miserably treating the complainant, by making false allegations of dishonouring of his cheques, demanding cheque bouncing charges and balance due amount. For such purposes, had been deputing their henchmen or collection agents to house of the complainant, accusing him of not clearing loan amount and demanding cheque bouncing charges. All such acts on part of opposite party, were deliberate which must have caused harm not only to reputation of the complainant, but also to his prestige, self esteem and honour.


Therefore, complainant must have been dismayed, subjected to frustration and disgust, on account of such false allegations, levelled by opposite party. Therefore, opposite party is clearly established to be guilty or resorting to unfair trade practice, to extort extra money from its customer, by hook or crook and use of its muscle power.

First Appeal No. A/10/16
(Arisen out of order dated 30/04/2009 in Case No. CC 202/07 of District Kollam)
1. The Centurian Bank of Punjab Ltd. Law College road, PMG Junction, Trivandrum
Kerala
....Appellant
Versus
1. Rajesh Manchadiyil, Thazham Middle, Chathannoor.P.O, Chathanaoor
Kerala

....Respondent

BEFORE :
HONORABLE JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU , PRESIDENT

PRESENT: None for the Appellant
None for the Respondent
*JUDGEMENT/ORDER


KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
FIRST APPEAL 16/2010
JUDGMENT DATED : 21.1.2010
PRESENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER

1.Centurian Bank of Punjab Ltd., :APPELLANTS
Law College Road, PMG Junction,
Trivandrum, Now HDFC Bank Ltd.,
Represented by its Authorised signatory
And Power of Attorney Holder.

2. Collection Manager,
Centurian Bank of Punjab Ltd.,
VMK Building, Polyathodu, Kollam,
Now HDFC Bank Ltd.
(By Adv.T.L.Sreeram)

vs.

Rajesh.A, Manchadiyil, : RESPONDENT
Thazham Middle Chathannoor.P.O.,
Chathannoor
From Sindhu Bhavan Meenadu,
Near Palamukku, Nedumgolam Post,
Kollam.
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.202/2007 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost.
2. We find that the order is not a considered one. The appellants were
ex parte. The matter relates to the alleged excess charges insisted for the repayment of a vehicle loan. No proper reasons have been furnished for not contesting the case before the Forum. In the circumstances the order of Forum is set aside on condition that the appellants/opposite parties pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost to the complainant or deposit of the amount before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. The Forum will permit the appellants to contest the matter. Forum will issue notice to the complainant.
3. The case stands posted before the Forum on 17.3.2010.
4. Office is directed to forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently.