COMPLAINANT Siddegowda. B, C/o. Lakshmi Medicals, #570, Ist Main Road, Ist Cross Road, Om Shakti Temple Road, Lakshmannagar, Vishwanedam Post, Bangalore – 560 091.

V/s.

OPPOSITE PARTY Citi Financial, No. 1846, 2nd Stage, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Near Navarang, Bangalore – 560 010. Advocate (M.H. Hidayathulla)

O R D E R

This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant availed a loan of Rs.35,000/- from OP, but after deducting some hidden charges OP disbursed only Rs.31,700/- and asked the complainant to repay the same in an EMI of Rs.1,935/-.

Complainant started making payment of the said EMI from 05.08.2007. He is prompt in making payment of 17 EMI. With all that OP insisting him to clear the outstanding dues and they went on charging the exorbitant interest on the amount in due. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to reduce the interest and set right the accounts, went in futile. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.



2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant is expected to repay the said loan in 36 EMI at the rate of Rs.1,935/-.

As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement they have deducted the insurance premium, credit shield, processing fee, service tax, etc. There is nothing wrong committed by them. But thereafter complainant became the chronic defaulter in payment of the EMI. Even some of the cheques issued by the complainant towards the EMI bounced. Under such circumstances OP has got a right to collect the cheque bounce charges, penal interest for delayed payment as per the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement. As on today complainant is still in due of Rs.30,337.45. When OP made demand of the same complainant has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.



3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.


4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:

Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order?

5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:

Point No.1:- In Negative

Point No.2:- Negative

Point No.3:- As per final Order.



R E A S O N S

6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.35,000/- from OP repayable in 36 EMI at the rate of Rs.1,935/-. A loan agreement came to be executed. Complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the said loan agreement. According to the complainant he has paid only 17 instalments, though required to pay 36 EMI. It is further contended by the complainant that OP has charged exorbitant interest.


For this allegation basically there is no proof. On the other hand it is contended by the OP that the complainant is a chronic defaulter and some of the cheques given towards EMI are bounced. As such they have imposed the penal interest and cheque bounce charges. That act of the OP in our view cannot be termed as deficiency in service.



7. According to the OP as on today the complainant is still in due of Rs.30,337.45. When OP made demand of the same complainant has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. We find substance in the defence of the OP because complainant has not disputed the fact of outstanding dues. We have closely scrutinized both oral and documentary evidence, in our view OP has exercised its powers well within the limits of loan agreement. When that is so, complainant being the defaulter he cannot allege the deficiency in service.



8. On the plain reading of the allegations made in the complaint, it did not spell out a case of hiring of service and suffering from deficiency, rather it disclosed a case relating to settlement of accounts and for the balance due on the basis of the accounts. Under such circumstances the complainant did not fall within the ambit of sec-2(1) (c) (e) of the C.P.

Act. If the complainant is so advised, he can file a regular Civil Suit to redress his grievance if any. The complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 28th day of March 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 29.12.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 28th MARCH 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2836/2008 COMPLAINANT Siddegowda. B, C/o. Lakshmi Medicals, #570, Ist Main Road, Ist Cross Road, Om Shakti Temple Road, Lakshmannagar, Vishwanedam Post, Bangalore – 560 091. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Citi Financial, No. 1846, 2nd Stage, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Near Navarang, Bangalore – 560 010. Advocate (M.H. Hidayathulla)


O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant availed a loan of Rs.35,000/- from OP, but after deducting some hidden charges OP disbursed only Rs.31,700/- and asked the complainant to repay the same in an EMI of Rs.1,935/-. Complainant started making payment of the said EMI from 05.08.2007. He is prompt in making payment of 17 EMI. With all that OP insisting him to clear the outstanding dues and they went on charging the exorbitant interest on the amount in due. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to reduce the interest and set right the accounts, went in futile. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.



2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant is expected to repay the said loan in 36 EMI at the rate of Rs.1,935/-. As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement they have deducted the insurance premium, credit shield, processing fee, service tax, etc. There is nothing wrong committed by them. But thereafter complainant became the chronic defaulter in payment of the EMI. Even some of the cheques issued by the complainant towards the EMI bounced. Under such circumstances OP has got a right to collect the cheque bounce charges, penal interest for delayed payment as per the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement. As on today complainant is still in due of Rs.30,337.45. When OP made demand of the same complainant has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.


3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.

4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:
Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed?
Point No. 3 :- To what Order?



5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:
Point No.1:- In Negative
Point No.2:- Negative
Point No.3:- As per final


Order.


R E A S O N S


6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.35,000/- from OP repayable in 36 EMI at the rate of Rs.1,935/-. A loan agreement came to be executed. Complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the said loan agreement. According to the complainant he has paid only 17 instalments, though required to pay 36 EMI. It is further contended by the complainant that OP has charged exorbitant interest. For this allegation basically there is no proof. On the other hand it is contended by the OP that the complainant is a chronic defaulter and some of the cheques given towards EMI are bounced. As such they have imposed the penal interest and cheque bounce charges. That act of the OP in our view cannot be termed as deficiency in service.


7. According to the OP as on today the complainant is still in due of Rs.30,337.45. When OP made demand of the same complainant has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. We find substance in the defence of the OP because complainant has not disputed the fact of outstanding dues. We have closely scrutinized both oral and documentary evidence, in our view OP has exercised its powers well within the limits of loan agreement. When that is so, complainant being the defaulter he cannot allege the deficiency in service.


8. On the plain reading of the allegations made in the complaint, it did not spell out a case of hiring of service and suffering from deficiency, rather it disclosed a case relating to settlement of accounts and for the balance due on the basis of the accounts. Under such circumstances the complainant did not fall within the ambit of sec-2(1) (c) (e) of the C.P. Act. If the complainant is so advised, he can file a regular Civil Suit to redress his grievance if any. The complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 28th day of March 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

Date of Filing:23.10.2008

Date of Order : 11.03.2009

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20

Dated: 11th DAY OF MARCH 2009

PRESENT

Sri. Bajentri H.M, B.A, LL.B., President

Smt.C.V. Rajamma, B.Sc., LL.B., PGDPR, Member


COMPLAINT NO. 2274 OF 2008

Venan B.Dias
Premises No.1137,
BTM 4th Stage,
6th Main Cross,
I Block, D.C.Halli,
BDA Layout, Next to
NightingaleSchool
Bangalore-76.

…. Complainant.

V/s

Citifinancial Consumer Finance India Ltd.,
No.216/13, SurajTowers,
27th Cross, 3rd Block Ground Floor,
Jayanagar, Bangalore-560011.

…. Opposite Party

-: ORDER:-

The complainant had taken a loan of Rs.34,100/- from the Opposite Party on 25.11.2005. He started to pay the EMI of Rs.1,956/- from June – 2006 onwards for a period of 36 months. He got a call from the Opposite Party advising to go for Top-Up Loan to cut the rate of interest and the time period required to pay the loan. Thinking that the same is helpful. He opted for Top-Up loan not realizing that it is a trap laid down to hook him up for another 36 months. He was sanctioned Top-Up Loan of Rs.56,000/- on 20.09.2006 and out of it, Rs.34,000/- was deducted towards earlier loan and cheque for Rs.22,664/- was issued. The EMI was fixed at Rs.2,606/- Per Month payable from 05.11.2006 for another 36 months. There is no account of the EMI’s till October 2006 starting from January 2006. He has been paying the EMI of Rs.2,606/- Per Month from November 2006 and he has to pay the same till October 2009. This is an overview of what the Opposite Party is doing on the pretext of giving Top-Up Loan. For the amount of Rs.50,000/- he has to pay more than Rs.50,000/- which is very exorbitant and unethical. He had also availed personal loan from HDFC and ICICI Banks and the rate of interest compared to those Banks is more in City Financial. The Opposite Party is misguiding the consumers. Hence the complaint to get back the entire money paid in excess namely the first 10 EMI’s at the rate of Rs.1,956/ Per Month amounting to Rs.20,000/- for which there is no account.



3.In the version, the contention of the Opposite Party is as under:-
The complaint is false, frivolous, baseless, misconceived and is filed with ulterior motive. The complainant has not approached the Forum with the clean hands and has suppressed material facts. The issue as to whether the rate of interest charged is excessive or not is beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. It is denied that the complainant had taken a loan of Rs.34,100/- on 25.11.2005 for a tenure of 36 months for the payment as contended. The complainant had taken a loan of Rs.35,00/- on 25.11.2005 as per the loan agreement and the same was payable in 42 EMIs of Rs.1,956/- each. Rs.34,100/- was disbursed after deducting processing fee and other statutory charges mentioned in the letter of acknowledgment issued by the complainant at the time of disbursement of the loan amount. Being in need of more money, the complainant himself approached for Top-Up Loan of Rs.56,000/- in September 2006. Accordingly, the loan was sanctioned on 19.09.2006 and the same was payable in 36 EMIs of 2,606/- each with interest at the rate of 22.5%. A sum of Rs.32,696/- was deducted towards outstanding amount for four-closure of the existing loan and deducting the process fee and other statutory charges, Rs.22,664/- was disbursed to the complainant. The allegation that there is no account of the EMI’s of Rs.1,956/- Per Month paid till October 2006 towards earlier loan is denied. They have maintained records of each and every transaction between the borrower and the Opposite Party with respect to each loan separately. It is denied that the complainant ha paid more than Rs.50,000/- to re-pay Rs.50,000/- as contended. The complainant has availed loan of Rs.56,000/- and not Rs.50,000/-. The complainant is aware of the amount to be re-paid along with the interest rate from the day of sanction of the loan as the loan agreement incorporated of the terms and conditions including the rate of interest has been executed between the parties and the complainant has put his signature on the agreement with his free will. He was also provided with repayment schedule showing the complete details of the amount to be repaid towards repayment of the loan. The loan was sanctioned at the request of the complainant as per the prevailing market rates at the time of sanction of the loan. HDFC BANK AND ICICI BANK are different financial entities regulated by their own policies and market trends and the complainant was also aware of the same. The issue whether the rate of interest charged by the Opposite Party is excessive is beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. On these grounds, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.



4.The complainant has filed rejoinder to the version filed by the Opposite Party. In support of the respective contention, both parties have filed affidavits. Both parties have filed written arguments.


5. The points for consideration:-
1.Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
2.Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?


6. Our findings to both points is in the NEGATIVE for the following:-

-:REASONS:-

7. A reading of the complaint makes it clear that the grievance of the complainant is with regard to the rate of interest charged by the Opposite Parties on the loan sanctioned to him. The complainant himself has produced the repayment statement issued by the Opposite Party in respect of both the loans. In these statements, the rate of interest charged is clearly mentioned. The amount payable towards each EMI is also mentioned. It is the contention of the Opposite Party that the complainant has also executed loan agreement disclosing the rate of interest charged. If that is so, after availing the loan and making re-payment of the same for some period, now the complainant is not entitled to question the rate of interest charged by the Opposite Party on the loan sanctioned and to compare the rate of interest charged by other Banks. The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the loan agreement executed by him with regard to the rate of interest charged on the loan sanctioned. As rightly contended by the Opposite Party, the issue regarding rate of interest cannot be raised under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, in these proceedings, the complainant cannot be heard to say that the rate of interest charged by the Opposite Party is higher when compared to the rate of interest charged by other banks. When complainant had availed loan from the Opposite Party agreeing to repay the same with interest, he is bound to pay more than the amount of the loan to discharge the loan. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the contention that for repayment of the loan of Rs.50,000/-, he has to pay more than Rs.50,000/-. We also do not find any substance in the claim of the complainant for refund of 10 EMI’s paid towards repayment of the first loan. Thus, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and hold that the complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint. In the result, we pass the following:-

-:ORDER:-

• The complaint is DISMISSED. There is no order as to costs.
• Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs immediately.
• Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 11th DAY OF MARCH 2009.

Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT

C.C.No.43 of 2008

BETWEEN:

Kapa Bhaskar Rao,
S/o. Nageswara Rao,
R/o. D.No.1-32-47,
S.V.N. Colony,
Guntur. … Complainant

AND


Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager,
Brundavan Garden Circle,
Beside IBP Petrol Bunk,
Brundavan Garden,
Guntur. … Opposite party

This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 28-04-09 in the presence of Sri P.V. Siva Kumar, Advocate for complainant and of Sri Para Kishore Advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:

O R D E R
Per Sri T. ANJANEYULU, PRESIDENT:

This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant claiming damages of Rs.70,000/- towards mental agony, damage of goodwill and compensation for loss suffered by the complainant and for return of all post dated cheques to complainant and also for costs of Rs.5000/-.

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had availed a consumer loan of Rs.30,000/- from the opposite party on 04-07-06 for purchase of two wheeler under account No.8919794 agreeing to repay the same in 24 equal monthly installments @ Rs.1500/- per month, which includes flat rate of interest @ 10% p.a. Accordingly, the complainant has handed over 24 post dated cheques to the opposite party as security measure. Thereafter, the complainant has been paying the installments regularly without any fault from 05-08-06 upto February, 2008. While things stood thus, on 02-02-08 the opposite party demanded the complainant to make payment of Rs.230/- and Rs.220/- towards cheque bouncing charges for the cheques bearing Nos.135341 & 386387.

The complainant submits that as per the statement of account of Andhra Bank, JKC College Branch, Guntur the default was in January, 2008 as one cheque bearing No.386387 was dishonored, for which the complainant made cash payment. It was also intimated to the opposite party, even then the amount of Rs.230/- was collected towards cheque bouncing charges for dishonor of cheque bearing No.135341 for which the complainant has no liability to pay the same. On the demand and compulsion of opposite party, the complainant paid Rs.230/- towards cheque bouncing charge for dishonor of cheque bearing No.135341. On verification it is found that the said cheque was neither presented for payment nor dishonored by the complainant’s banker. The complainant questioned and demanded the opposite party to prove the dishonor of cheque but it was avoiding by saying cock and bull stories. The complainant also demanded the opposite party to return the bounced cheques and as well as un-bounced cheques for the months already payment was made as the complainant had paid all the installments upto now. But the opposite party did not return the cheques issued for the period already completed. The complainant also demanded for issue of statement of account to verify the payments made, but the opposite party refused. The complainant being a businessman and a private financier, the acts of opposite party caused mental agony and damaged goodwill of complainant. Hence, the complaint.



The opposite party filed its version and denied all the allegations made in the complaint and raised certain preliminary objections about the maintainability of dispute and prayed for dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs. It is also alleged that the matter involves intricate, complex and complicated question of law and fact, which requires detailed and elaborate trial as such Civil Court is competent to decide the same.


The complaint does not fit within the meaning of Section 2(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the dispute is of commercial nature, as such it does not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. The complaint is not a consumer; as such the dispute is not maintainable.


It is submitted that the complainant applied for two wheeler loan for a sum of Rs.30,000/- and the same was granted by the opposite party. However, a net amount of Rs.29,080/- was paid after deducting processing fee, service tax and other statutory charges in accordance with terms of loan agreement. The amount is to be repaid in 24 equal monthly installments @ Rs.1500/- each which includes interest @ 10% p.a. The complainant had given 24 post dated cheques for an amount of Rs.1500/- each for the respective months towards repayment of loan but not as security measure. It is denied that the complainant paid installments regularly from August, 2008 to February, 2008. The post-dated cheques for the months of October and November, 2008 were dishonored and the complainant had made cash payment for the said months. The complainant is a chronic defaulter and has failed to clear the loan amount. It is submitted that as on 30-05-08, the complainant is still liable to pay Rs.6642.67 towards foreclosure of loan account. It is pertinent to mention here that the six post-dated cheques issued by the complainant were dishonored during different months. The same is evident from the statement of account of complainant. It is denied that on 02-02-08, the opposite party demanded a sum of Rs.230/- and Rs.220/- from the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant had made cash payment of Rs.230/- and Rs.220/- in the month of February, 2008 and the same has been received towards cheque bounce charges for the month of November, 2006 and January, 2008. The said amount has been rightly demanded by the opposite party. It is further denied that post-dated cheque issued by complainant bearing No.135341 was never presented by the opposite party for encashment. The same was presented for encashment on 05-11-06 but was dishonored due to insufficient funds in the account of complainant. The complainant did not approach the opposite party for return of cheques. However, question of return of cheques would arise after clearing the entire loan amount. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.



Both sides have filed their chief affidavits. The complainant also got marked documents Ex.A1 to A4. The opposite party did not file any documents in support of their contentions.


The dispute raised by the complainant is that the opposite party illegally collected a sum of Rs.230/- towards cheque bouncing charges in due course of repayment of loan amount. It is not in dispute that the complainant approached opposite party, which advanced loans to the consumers for purchase of consumer goods and availed a sum of Rs.30,000/- for purchase of two wheeler on 4-7-06. The said amount was repaid in 24 equal monthly installments @ Rs.1500/- per month, which includes interest @ 10% p.a. Accordingly he has given post-dated cheques for 24 months. In the meanwhile, it is alleged that the opposite party has demanded on 02-02-08 for payment of Rs.230/- and 220/- towards cheque bouncing charges of cheques bearing Nos.135341 and 386387 respectively. Admittedly one cheque bearing No.386387 was bounced in the month of January, 2008 for which he has made cash payment. But according to the complainant under compulsion he was made to pay Rs.230/- towards cheque bouncing charges for the cheque bearing No.135341, which was neither presented for payment nor dishonored by the banker. Because of this attitude of opposite party the complainant claims that he has suffered mentally and lost his goodwill. Therefore, he claims damages in the aforesaid manner to the tune of Rs.70,000/- apart from cost of litigation.


The version of opposite party is that two cheques referred by complainant were very much dishonored as such they have rightly collected cheque bouncing charges. Further they allege that the complainant was still due uncleared loan amount of Rs.6642.67. Therefore, they claim that they have rightly collected the said amount but not in compulsion as alleged. They have also raised preliminary objections as stated above about the maintainability of complaint.


With regard to preliminary objections raised, we observe that the opposite party being Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. having its branch office in Guntur advances loans to its customers for purchase of consumer goods and also other kinds of loans. Thus, it is a service provider in advancing loans and also collecting the same from its customers with interest there on. In due course of discharge of its functions any deviation with regard to loan agreement in respect of collection of installments or the amounts incidental there to would amount to deficiency of service. The matter does not involve any intricate question of law and fact and will not require detailed or elaborate trail; as such there is no need to direct it to the Civil Court. The dispute is about illegal collection of Rs.230/- towards cheque bounce charges. If it proved that the said amount is illegally collected in exercise of their functions not permitted under the terms of agreement, certainly it would amount to deficiency of service. Therefore, the complaint is very much maintainable.


Now coming to the merits of case, as seen from the evidence on record, the complainant has filed two receipts dt.13-02-08 and 12-02-08 for collection of amount of Rs.230/- and Rs.220/- respectively by the opposite party. These receipts are marked as Ex.A1. The complainant also filed statement of account from 01-01-06 to 01-02-08 issued by his banker namely Andhra Bank, JKC College branch, Guntur. It shows withdrawal of amounts by complainant through ATM for his utilization. The opposite party also presented some cheque bearing Nos.135338 on 07-08-06, 135339 on 08-09-06, 135342 on 06-12-06, 135343 on 09-01-07, 135344 on 08-02-07, 135346 on 11-04-07 and encashed the amounts @ Rs.1500/-. As rightly pointed out by the complainant cheque bearing No.386387 presented on 09-01-08 for which he made cash payment subsequently. The statement of account does not reflect about the presentation of cheque bearing No.135341. Therefore, the said cheque was neither presented for payment nor it was dishonored. Ex.A1 cash receipts issued by opposite party in favour of complainant shows collection of Rs.230/- and Rs.220/- towards cheque bouncing charges but they do not indicate cheque numbers. It is the bounden duty of opposite party to explain to the complainant that the cheque bearing No.135341 was bounced on its presentation due to insufficient funds. It appears that Ex.A3 statement of account issued by opposite party itself shows that cheque-bearing No.135341 is given for the month of November, 2006 but the same was not presented. On the other hand, the cheque bearing No.135342 was presented for the month of December, 2006 and it was encashed by the opposite party.


Thus the opposite party has failed to establish the fact that the said cheque 135341 or any other cheque as alleged by them was dishonored and that they have incurred Rs.220/- towards bouncing charges. They fail to establish the fact that the complainant is still due a sum of Rs.6642.67 towards repayment of loan amount. No single document is filed before the Forum. Ex.A2 i.e., copy of statement of account of Andhra Bank establish the fact that the cheque bearing No.135341 was neither presented for payment nor dishonored in the month of November, 2006. The complainant has rightly admitted about the dishonor of cheque 386387 in the month of January, 2008 and he has paid cash. Therefore, he has every right to seek redressal. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.230/- collected excessively by opposite party with suitable compensation. The damages claimed on this account by the complainant are on high side. We feel it proper to award a sum of Rs.500/- towards damages apart from Rs.500/- towards cost of litigation. The complainant is also entitled for return of cheques for which payments have been made. The opposite party shall return the same after verifying the account.


In the result, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicated below:

• The opposite party is hereby directed to refund the sum of Rs.230/- collected towards cheque bouncing charges apart form damages of Rs.500/- and costs of Rs.500/-.
• We also direct the opposite party to return the cheques of the complainant for which amounts have been paid after verifying the account.
• The aforesaid amounts shall be paid within a period of six weeks otherwise it carries interest @ 9% p.a.

W/o. G. Rajesh Kumar,
Aged about 25 years,
Occ:Pvt. Employee,
Flat No.102, H.No.11-13-81/2/10,
Road No.2, Ravathi Residency,
Alkapuri, Hyderabad. ……Complainant
And
1. M/s. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Limited,
Beside Anand Theatre,
Begumpet, Hyderabad.
2. M/s. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Limited,
2, LSC, Pushp Vihar,
New Delhi – 110062. ... Opposite Parties


O R D E R


1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 seeking directions against opposite parties to:-


(a) To clarify regarding the presentation of four cheques in September, 2007 consecutively.
(b) To pay a sum of Rs.1,576/- towards the four cheque return charges, charged by the bankers.
© To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and suffering due to negligence of opposite parties and
(d) To award costs of the complaint.


2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant was granted top up loan of Rs.75,000/- payable in EMI of Rs.3,193/-by the opposite parties and thereafter once again the opposite parties approached the complainant and offered Top Up Loan of Rs.1,00,000/- stating that he was very prompt and regular in payment of monthly instalments. After making adjustment of previous loan transaction the complainant was eligible for Rs.43,590/- towards the loan amount and the same was payable in a monthly instalments of Rs.4,028/-.


The representative of opposite party No.1 stated that a Gift Cheque of Rs.900/-would be handed over to the complainant. The loan was sanctioned on 17-05-2007 and EMI was payable on 25th of every month. Inspite of the promises made by the representative of the opposite parties that the EMI would not be deducted from June, 2007, the opposite party started deducting the same from June, 2007 itself.



The opposite party No.1, presented the cheque on 5th of September, 2007 as against 25th of every month and further to add insult to injury, the opposite parties presented the cheques consecutively for four times i.e., twice on 5th and twice on 12th of September, 2007, Once an EMI for the month of September, 2007, was already paid, there was no question of presenting the subsequent cheques as such the cheques which were presented by the opposite parties subsequent to the clearance of the EMI were dishonoured and the complainants banker charged a sum of Rs.1,576/- @ 394/- per cheque towards four cheque return charges.


The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and requested to explain as to how the opposite parties presented the cheques subsequent to the clearance of EMI for the month of September, 2007 but the concerned staff did not give proper response and gave evasive reply as such the complainant addressed a letter requiring the opposite parties to stop further clearance of ECS till clarification.



The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 27-09-2007 to opposite party No.1 duly marking a copy to opposite party No.2, calling upon them to refund a sum of Rs.1,576/-being the four cheque return charges @ Rs.394/- to stop ECS till further clarification and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental torture.


The opposite party No.2 sent a reply notice dated 19-10-2007 directing the complainant to approach the opposite party No.1, to sort out a solution. After receipt of the said reply the complainant approached the opposite party No.1, but no proper response was given by the staff. Thereafter the opposite parties high handedly threatened the complainant through legal notices causing mental torture and agony. The complainant sent suitable replies to the opposite parties and in all the reply notices, she claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental torture on account of negligent attitude.


3. The opposite parties in their version submitted that the complainant had defaulted on many occasions. It is denied that the respondents or any of their representatives approached the complainant or offered any top up loan. It is submitted that it was the complainant who was in need of money and consequently approached the respondents for availing a top up loan in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.


It is denied that the complainant was entitled to receive a sum of Rs.43,590/- with respect to the said loan bearing no. 12056612. It is submitted that after adjusting the outstanding amount with respect to the previous loan account bearing no.7896564, and the deduction of the processing fee, the complainant was entitled to a sum of Rs.42,690/-and the same was disbursed to her on or about 17-05-2007. It is pertinent to mention here that according to the loan agreement executed between the parties, the said loan was to be repaid in 36 EMIs of Rs.4,028/- each and the EMI was payable on the 5th day of every month starting from the month of June, 2007. It is denied that the respondents or any of their representatives ever informed the complainant that any gift cheque in the sum of Rs.900/- would be handed over to her. It is denied that the EMI was payable on the 25th of every month.



The respondents requested the complainant to instruct her bank to stop payment of the said installment but the complainant failed to do so and the installment got encashed in routine. It is submitted that since a sum of Rs.3,193/-was received by the respondents as excess payment with respect to the loan account bearing no. 7896564 it was adjusted towards the part payment of the EMI for the loan account No.12056612 for the month of July.

Out of the EMI of Rs.4,028/-cleared in the month of August, 2007 a sum of Rs.835/- was adjusted towards the EMI for the month of July, 2007 and the balance sum of Rs.3,193/-was received towards the EMI for the month of August, 2007. The EMIs of Rs.4,028/- are being adjusted in the same manner every month.


The complainant was charged a sum of Rs.1,576/-as bounce charges by her bank. The said amount of Rs.1,576/- was adjusted towards the current loan account. It is submitted that out of the said sum of Rs.1,576/-a sum of Rs.835/- was adjusted towards the short paid EMI for the month of September, 2007 and the remaining amount of Rs.741/-was adjusted towards the EMI due for the month of October, 2007.

The respondents issued an apology letter in this regard and duly informed the complainant that as a good will gesture, a dinner set was also being given to the complainant, which could be collected from the branch office. However, it is submitted that the complainant refused to come and collect the same from the branch office. It is denied that the respondents have acted high handedly, as alleged. Hence prayed the Hon’ble forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.



4. The Complainant filed evidence affidavit reiterating her stand.


5. Points for Consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties and



2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for?


6. Exhibits A1 & A12 are relied on by the Complainant and Ex.B.1 to B.3 are marked for the opposite parties.



7. Points 1 & 2:- Perused the material on record. The main grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties inspite of clearance of EMI in the month of September, 2007 again presented the cheque for Rs.4,028/- four times in the same month i.e., twice on 5th September, 2007 and twice on 12th September, 2007 which were dishonored for want of sufficient funds and the bank charged Rs.1,576/- towards cheque return charges.

The complainant approached the opposite parties made number of representations and also exchanged notices but the opposite parties failed to respond. The complainant filed the legal notices exchanged between both the parties which are marked as Exs.A1 to A9. Ex.A10 is the cheque return memo issued by the Axis Bank. Ex.A11 is the Postal acknowledgement receipts. Ex.A12 is the letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant.



The opposite parties in their defence submitted that the said amount of Rs.1,576/- charged towards cheque bounce charges was adjusted towards the current loan account. The opposite parties also pleaded that they had issued an apology letter in this regard and also offered a dinner set as good will gesture, but the Complainant failed to collect the same.



To substantiate their version the opposite parties filed Exs.B1 to B3. Ex.B1 is the credit approval sheet, Ex.B2 is the customer loan application, and Ex.B3 is the statement of account.



8. Ex A10 disclose that Four times a cheque for Rs.4,028/- was presented before the bank and the said cheques were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. The complainant contended that the bank charged Rs.1,576/-towards cheque return charges. The opposite parties admitted this fact in their written version and stated that the said amount was adjusted towards the current loan amount which was reflected in Ex.B1.


As the amount charged towards cheque return charges were already adjusted by the opposite parties, the complainant is not entitled for this amount from the opposite parties. With the negligent acts of the opposite parties, the complainant had under gone a lot of mental agony and distress for which, she should be reasonably compensated. The ends of Justice would be met if the complainant is awarded the compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the agony she suffered.


9. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties No. 1& 2 to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousands only) towards compensation along with Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousands only) towards legal expenses (costs).

A.Harsha Poojary,

S/o M.J.Poojary,

Civil Contractor,

D.No.7-137(D), Kodankoor,

PO Nittoor, Udupi – 576 101.



………..Complainant

Versus



1. The Manager,

M/s City Financial,

No.9, Raj Towers,

City Bus Stand,

Udupi – 576 101.



2. Managing Director,

M/s City Financial Consumer Finance (I) Ltd.,

Regd. Off: 3, LSC Pushpa Vihar,

New Delhi 110062.


…………..Opposite Parties



1. The Complainant has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 alleging deficiency in service and prayed for direction to the Opposite Parties to get the name of the Complainant removed from the list of defaults from the CIBIL and pay him compensation for their deficiency in service and Rs.2,000/- towards traveling and other miscellaneous expenses, Rs.1,500/- being the cost of notice plus cost of the proceedings, etc.



2. The case of the Complainant is he is a Civil Contractor by profession. During 2005 he availed a loan of Rs.18,000/- from the Opposite Parties under loan account No.6697706. The said loan was repayable in monthly installments

Contd…….2

of Rs.1,540/- for a period of 18 months. On account of personal problems, the Complainant could not pay 2 or 3 installments of the loan in time which he cleared later with overdue interest. The Opposite Parties shared the said information with Credit information Bureau (India) Ltd. (CIBIL) branding the Complainant as a defaulter.



3. The Complainant submits that he cleared the said loan in its entirety on 15.09.2008 as per the loan settlement letter of the Opposite Parties dated 13.09.2008. On settlement for the loan account, the Opposite Parties assured the Complainant that his name would be removed from the list of defaulters got recorded by them with the CIBIL within a week and that they will issue the Complainant certificate of satisfaction/clearance immediately thereafter. The Complainant submits that after fully settling the account he approached the Opposite Parties several times demanding them to remove his name from CIBIL and issue clearance certificate. Though the Opposite Parties assured to do so within a week, till today they have neither removed his name from the list of defaulters from the CIBIL nor issued him certificate of clearance.



4. The Complainant submits that after5 settling the loan of the Opposite Parties in full, the Complainant approached several other banks and financial institutions seeking credit facilities who refused to extend him any credit facilities on account of the inaction of the Opposite Parties in not getting his name removed from the list of defaulters from CIBIL. The Complainant is still regarded as defaulter in the financial /credit market. The Complainant is not getting any loan/credit facilities from any corner for which the Opposite Parties wholly and solely liable. The Opposite Parties are therefore guilty of deficiency of service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.



5. The Complainant submits that he as a civil contractor requires credit facilities for purchasing materials such as cement, steel, jelly, sand, payment of wages etc. The negligent act and callous attitude of the Opposite Parties has affected the Complainant in the credit market to such a sizable extent that he is not getting any civil work without bank’s finance.

Contd…….3

6. The Complainant submits that after settling the loan of the Opposite Parties in full, the Complainant approached several other banks and financial institutions seeking credit facilities who refused to extend him any credit facilities on account of the inaction of the Opposite Parties in not getting his name removed from the list of defaulters from CIBIL. The Complainant is still regard as defaulter in the financial/credit market. The Complainant is not getting any loan/credit facilities from any corner for which the Opposite Parties wholly and solely liable. The Opposite Parties are therefore guilty of deficiency of service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.



7. The Complainant left with no alternative got issued a lawyer’s notice dated 15.12.2008 to the Opposite Parties calling upon them to get his name removed from the list of defaulters from CIBIL and issue him certificate of clearance and also pay him a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of notice till payment within seven days of the receipt of the notice. The said notice has been duly served on the Opposite Parties as per the postal acknowledgements. Though the Opposite Parties have accepted the said notice without demur and acquiesced in the correctness of the demand. The Opposite Parties are therefore estopped from contending otherwise. Hence this complaint.



8. Notice of the complaint issued to the Opposite Parties. Opposite Party No.1’s notice returned with postal endorsement as “firm closed”. Opposite Party No.2 appeared through their counsel and filed the version contending that the complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable being false, frivolous baseless, misconceived and is filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention by the Complainant. Further the Complainant has not approached the forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. At the outset the Opposite Party denies each and every allegations, averment and submission made by the Complainant unless specifically admitted by the Opposite Party.



9. Opposite Party No.2 submitted that at the time of Loan Agreement the Complainant agreed to pay the EMIs regularly but as the Complainant has himself admitted that he had defaulted in making the repayment of the scheduled EMI’s and hence maligned the sanctity of the Loan Agreement. it is further submitted

Contd………4

that the Opposite Party is a responsible and law abiding corporate entity, which is duly registered with the Reserve Bank of India as Non Banking Finance Company (NBFC) and strictly adheres to all the Directions/ Guidelines/Notifications issued by the RBI and the Laws of India. it is pertinent to mention that Opposite Party, being Financial Institute, is bound to give all the details of its customers to the Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited (CIBIL) and as per the norms Opposite Party is bound to send the status of its customer on regular basis.

It is specifically denied that the Opposite Party has branded the Complainant as the defaulter and it is submitted that the Opposite Party has obeyed the laws of the country by sharing the credit information of the Complainant with CIBIL. It is further submitted that vide letter dated 26.06.2007 the Complainant was intimated that the Credit Records of the Complainant were maintained and updated on regular basis under the aegis of CIBIL. It was also informed that the said record is also accessible to credit grantors, Banks and other financial institutions/. companies of defaults in respect to his loan account payments is available to the credit bureau and hence accessible to other credit grantors as well.



10. Opposite Party further submitted that the Complainant has made full and final payment of the said Loan and Loan Account No.6697706 stands foreclosed on the records of the Opposite Party.

It is most humbly submitted that the Opposite Party has no authority either to remove the name of the Complainant from the defaulter’s list of CIBIL or to issue any kind of clearance certificate on behalf of CIBIL as the Opposite Party only gives the credit details of the Customer to CIBIL and then the CIBIL updates/maintains their own independent records as per the information provided by the financial institutions. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party has already provided the information to CIBIL that the Complainant is no long a defaulter under the said loan agreement and that he has cleared all the outstanding and his loan account stands foreclosed on the system of the Opposite Party. It is pertinent to mention that Opposite Party has already taken the necessary action on its part and as soon as the records are updated by CIBIL, which is exclusively their internal work, the Complainant will no more, be there in the defaulters list.



11. Opposite Party contended that the Complainant was made aware of the fact that the Opposite Party has no authority to issue clearance certificate or to

Contd…….5

remove the name from CIBIL defaulter list. Further it was brought to the knowledge of the Complainant that the Opposite Party has already done the needful by intimating CIBIL regarding the foreclosure of the said loan account and thus requested CIBIL to update its list as per the recent update provided by the Opposite Party and it is the CIBIL who has to do the needful now so no question arises, for issuing the clearance certificate or getting the name of the Complainant removed from CIBIL defaulter’s list, on behalf of Opposite Party.



12. Opposite Party further contended that the benefit of the customers is of paramount importance for the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party deals with each and every problem with utmost caution and care and has done what ever could have been done at the Opposite Party’s end to help the Complainant and such allegation of the Complainant is at attempt to tarnish the reputation of the Opposite Party. It is further submitted that in spite of persistent requests and explanations the Complainant is asking the Opposite Party to issue the clearance certificate for which the Opposite Party is not authorized.



13. Opposite Party has vehemently denied that there have been any illegal, unauthorized and high handed acts on the part of the Opposite Party. It is submitted that it is the Complainant himself who is forcing the Opposite Party to do the unauthorized and illegal act of issuing the clearance certificate and remove the name of the Complainant from the Defaulter List maintained by the CIBIL itself, over which Opposite Party has no authority.

The Opposite Party has made it clear to the Complainant number of times, that the Opposite Party is duty bound only to send the Credit Information regarding the current updated status of the customer’s account on regular basis and the information of the Foreclosure of the Complainant’s said account has been specifically sent to the CIBIL and the same has been properly replied in the preceding paras and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. it is further denied that the Complainant has been put to acute mental agony, tension, stress, insult, shock, humiliation and unrest by the falsely alleged acts of the Opposite Party and may be put to strict proof of the same. It is submitted that it is the Complainant who is putting undue pressure on the Opposite Party and has also dragged the Opposite Party into the frivolous litigation. it is vehemently denied that the Complainant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as the Opposite Party has performed all its

Contd…..6

obligations as per the provisions of the law. The Complaint being frivolous is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Hence, prayed to dismiss this complaint with heavy costs.



14. Complainant filed 6 documents which are marked as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6. Opposite Parties have not filed any documents. Complainant filed affidavit swearing to the facts stated in the complaint. Opposite Party filed interrogatories and reply affidavit by the Complainant. Opposite Party has not filed affidavit. Heard the Parties.



15. Now the points that arise for our consideration are as follows:

1) Whether the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service.

2) Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the compliant.

3) What Order?



Point No.1:

16. We have gone through the documents produced by the Complainant. Ex.C-1 is the communication from the Opposite Parties dated 26th June 2007. Ex.C-2 is the loan settlement letter dated 13th September 2008. Ex.C-3 is the full and final settlement voucher dated 15.9.2008. Ex.C-5 and 6 are the postal AD Cards.



17. The case of the Complainant is that during 2005 the Complainant availed a loan of Rs.18.000/- from the Opposite Parties under loan account No.6697706. The said loan was repayable in monthly installments of Rs.1,540/- for a period of 18 months. On account of personal problem the Complainant could not pay 2 or 3 installments of the loan in time which he cleared later with overdue interest. Opposite Party shared the said information with the Credit Information Bureau India Ltd. (CIBIL) branding the Complainant as a defaulter and issued a letter as per Ex.C-1.



18. As per the records the Complainant cleared the said loan in its entirety on 15.9.2008, in accordance with the settlement letter of the Opposite Party dated 13.9.2008. The Complainant further submits that after fully settling the account he approached the Opposite Parties several times demanding them to get his

Contd……7

name removed from CIBIL and issue clearance certificate. The Opposite Parties have only assured to do so but failed to issue him the clearance certificate and get removed his name from the list of defaulter from the CIBIL. Ex.C-4 is the copy of legal notice dated 15.12.2008 wherein the Complainant has called upon the Opposite Parties to get his name removed from the CIBIL and issue him the certificate of clearance but inspite of the receipt of the same the Opposite Parties did not oblige.



19. The contention of the Opposite Parties is that it is a non banking finance company NBFC and strictly adhere to all direction, guidelines,, notification issued by RBI and Laws of India. Opposite Party being the finance institution is bound to give all the details of its customer to CIBIL as per the norms Opposite Parties bound to send the status of its customer on regular basis.



20. At the same time the Opposite Parties are duty bound to inform the clearance of the entire loan in full and final settlement to the CIBIL, so that the CIBIL is able to remove the name of the Complainant from the list of defaulters. Though the Opposite Parties have stated that they have informed the clearance of the loan to the CIBIL there is no document produced by them for having informed the same. Non production of the document which is asserted by the Opposite Party draws the adverse inference. Hence, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service. Hence, we answer the point No.1 in the Affirmative.



Point No.2 and 3:

21. The Complainant has cleared the loan on 15.9.2008 and in spite of the legal notice the Opposite Parties have not taken any action so far. Consequently the Complainant has suffered mental agony as he could not avail any loan from the financial institution so far. Admittedly he is a Civil Contractor and if credit facility is withheld, definitely he suffers mental agony and business loss. Hence, we are of the opinion that the Complainant is entitled for the compensation for mental agony. Though he has claimed Rs.1,00,000/- granting a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation, in our opinion will meet the ends of justice. Hence, we answer the point No.2 in the Affirmative.

Contd…..8

22. In the result, we pass the following

ORDER

The complaint is allowed. Opposite Parties are directed to take necessary legal steps to get the name of the Complainant removed from the list of defaulter from the CIBIL with due information to the Complainant and pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony plus Rs.2,000/- as cost of the litigation. Opposite Parties shall comply with the above order within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Kewal Kant son of Sh. Raghbir Parkash, aged 45 years, resident of H.No.B-17/504, Sita Nagar, Ludhiana.
Versus


1- Citi Bank N.A. Home Loans, Ana Salai P.O., Chennai-600002 through its Managing Director/General Manager.

2- Citi Bank N.A . Home Loans, Adjoining Stock Exchange Building, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Manager.

3- M/s Walia & Walia, Master Chamber Building, SCO No.19, IInd Floor, Room No.182, Feroze Gandhi Market.

1- Complainant approached and obtained home loan of Rs.23 lacs vide letter dated 28.8.2004 from the opposite party. The loan carried interest @ 10.5% repayable in 120 monthly equated installments of Rs.31036/-. He was assigned loan account no.2100319. This home loan account number on 13.4.2005, was assigned new no.2100498, when loan account was enhanced to Rs.27 lacs from Rs.23 lacs. Rate of interest remained the same. But monthly installment was enhanced to Rs.36433/- from Rs.31036/-, repayable in same 120 installments. Case of the complainant is that in January, 2008, he approached opposite party no.1 for one time settlement of the loan account. Opposite party no.1 then issued letter dated 22.1.2008, requiring complainant to pay in all Rs.25 lacs on or before 15.2.2008.

The settled amount was agreed repayable in 2 installments of Rs.15 lacs on or before 31.1.2008 and Rs.10 lacs on or before 15.2.2008. On receipt of letter by the complainant, the sum of Rs.15 lacs was deposited by the complainant and for payment of balance Rs.10 lacs, sought extension of period by one month. Opposite party accepted the offer and required complainant to pay Rs.10.56 lacs on 31.3.2008. Out of it, complainant paid Rs.3.56 lacs on 31.3.2008, Rs.5 lacs on 5.4.2008 and Rs.2 lacs on 11.4.2008. Opposite party through fax, was intimated accordingly. After making payment, complainant demanded return of mortgaged documents which have not been returned by the opposite party till 25.4.2008. Opposite party put condition of depositing Rs.70,000/- towards account of NOC before return of mortgaged documents. This condition was raised by opposite party vide letter dated 30.4.2008. Despite it, they failed to issue NOC and return the documents.

Again contacted opposite party for return of the documents which were returned to him on 8.5.2008. In these circumstances, averred by the complainant that they charged excess interest than contractual from the complainant. Also charged various financial charges like late payment, transaction charges etc. which came to knowledge of the complainant on receipt of account statement from 13.4.2005 to 25.4.2008. In that statement, debit balance was mentioned as Rs.62,537.90. Against it, they charged Rs.70,000/-. Therefore, they illegally and arbitrarily charged excess amount under coercion method. Act of the opposite party caused mental pain, agony and financial loss to the complainant. Therefore, by filing this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has sought refund of Rs.1,26,000/- charged towards NOC, Rs.1 lac compensation for harassment and Rs.21000/- as litigation costs.

2- Opposite party claimed in reply that complaint is not maintainable, as complainant failed to repay the loan amount in agreed installments. Thereafter also failed to comply with one time settlement. He was to deposit Rs.25 lac under one time settlement on or before 15.2.2008, but he simply deposited/paid on that date, Rs.15 lacs only and failed to deposit Rs.10 lacs. He again was offered one time settlement, clearly conveying that in the event of default, bank will charge interest on the total outstanding amount. But he again failed to comply with the settlement twice, by not paying Rs.10.56 lacs on or before 31.3.2008. Complainant obtained loan on float rate of interest and consequently, was liable to pay the higher or lesser interest applicable at the point of time. In this scenario, conceded by opposite party that complainant initially took loan of Rs.23 lacs, which he got enhanced to Rs.27 lacs. So, claimed that there is no deficiency in service on their part, nor they infringed terms and conditions of the agreement with him. Rather, complainant himself flouted one time settlement twice. Hence, not entitled for any relief.

3- Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.

4- It is admitted that initially, complainant obtained loan of Rs.23 lacs from the opposite party, under their letter dated 28.8.2004 Ex.C2, repayable in 120 monthly installments. This loan was enhanced to Rs.27 lacs vide communication Ex.C3 dated 13.4.2005. Thereunder, rate of interest remained Rs.10.50% and loan payable in 120 months. But EMI was fixed at Rs.36433/- in place of Rs.31036/- fixed under loan amount of Rs.23 lacs.

5- It is again admitted that complainant in January, 2008, approached opposite party, for one time settlement of the loan. Opposite party consequently, vide communication Ex.C16 dated 22nd January, 2008, settled amount of Rs.25 lacs, as full and final payment, to clear debit account of the complainant. This amount of Rs.25 lacs was payable as under:

(i) On or before 31.1.2008 Rs.15 lacs.

(ii) On or before 15.2.2008 Rs.10 lacs.

6- It was stipulated in the letter that in the event of default of payment, as above, the structured payment plan shall stand cancelled/revoked automatically and the bank will be entitled to claim total amount as reflected in mortgage loan account. Complainant consequently, on or before 31.1.2008, deposited Rs.15 lacs as per settlement with the opposite party. For payment of balance Rs.10 lacs, requested for extension by one month. On such request by the complainant, opposite party issued another letter dated 31.3.2008 Ex.R2 (Ex.C18), requiring him to pay Rs.10.56 lacs on or before 31.3.2008. Same conditions were appended to this letter Ex.R2, which were incorporated by the opposite party in their earlier communication Ex.C16 vide which, one time settlement was made for Rs.25 lacs.

7- Thus, it is clear in these circumstances that intention of the complainant was honest and bonafide. He wanted to comply with agreement and understanding with opposite party. As a result, by stipulated time period on 31.3.2008, made payment of Rs.15 lacs, but was unable to arrange balance Rs.10 lacs on 15.2.2008. Hence, sought one month period to pay this amount of Rs.10 lacs. Opposite party accepted offer of the complainant, by extending period of payment from 15.2.2008 to 31.3.2008. By extending this period of payment for 45 days, they enhanced interest amount by Rs.56000/-. They penalized the complainant by raising one time settlement amount by Rs.56000/- from Rs.10 lacs, by demanding Rs.10.56 lacs.

8- By 31st March, 2008, complainant was able to deposit Rs.3.56 lacs, out of demanded amount of Rs.10.56 lacs. Rs.5 lacs was deposited by him on 5.4.2008 and Rs.2 lacs on 11.4.2008. So, it means complainant infringed the offer by 11 days only. Instead of paying entire demanded amount of Rs.10.56 in lump sum on 31.3.2008, he paid the same in 3 installments, firstly, Rs.3.56 lacs on 31.3.2008, Rs.5 lacs on 5.4.2008 and Rs.2 lacs on 11.4.2008. Therefore, entire demand of letter Ex.C18 (Ex.R2) in entirety was complied by the complainant. Making payment under one time settlement by the complainant, is clear reflection of his good, bonafide and honest intention, to pay the loan amount. It was his such honest intention that had requested for one time settlement. But opposite party did not take pity on condition of the complainant and went to squeezing him to the maximum with all force at their command.

9- At this stage, we would prefer to refer para-6 of page-6 of the written statement. In last lines of this paragraph, they stated as under:-

“The complainant again failed to comply with the settlement and failed to deposit Rs.10,56,000/- on 31.3.2008. The complainant deposited Rs.10,56,000/- uptill 15.4.2008 and that is too in part payments, as such, he was held liable to pay the total outstanding balance payable by him, as reflected in his mortgage account”.



10- Aforesaid admission of opposite party, clearly spells that entire demanded amount of Rs.10,56,000/- was paid by the complainant upto 15.4.2008 in part payment. In these circumstances, we feel that opposite party was cruel and unkind towards its own consumer. Because, for such delay of 15 days, payment of Rs.7000/- out of Rs.10.56 lacs, would have been well advised, to charge the complainant with agreed rate of interest 10.50%, or the penal interest as agreed. But instead of charging that rate of interest, they went on squeezing and drawing money from the complainant, by pull or pressure. Such act on part of a multi national bank repute like opposite party, was not fair to their name and dealings. They should have also some human touch and treated their own consumer, knowing his condition and plight and considering his honest intention in repaying the loan. All his such intentions were thrown to wind by the opposite party and only thought in terms of enriching their coffers.

11- But opposite party instead qua disregard to agreement Ex.R1 between the parties, forced the complainant to pay Rs.70,000/- more, as demanded vide letter dated 30.4.2008 Ex.R4. Certainly, amount of Rs.70,000/- could not have been penalty for delayed payment by 15 days of paltry amount of Rs.7000/-. Earlier also, under one time settlement, when complainant sought time, for allowing him to pay Rs.10 lacs after one month, complainant was penalized to the tune of Rs.56000/- by the opposite party, for extension of the period by one and a half months. Such tactics on part of opposite party, would not be fair on their name. Certainly, the same would amount resorting to unfair trade practice towards its own consumer. Therefore, we feel that opposite party was cruel towards the complainant, an honest customer, who with all earnest and anxiety, tried to pay the demanded amount to the opposite party, under one time settlement. But for certain counts, could not adhere to the prescribed schedule. For little delay, was penalized earlier by Rs.56000/- and subsequently, Rs.70000/- by the opposite party. Whereas opposite party should have penalized under one time settlement, only at the agreed rate of interest 10.5% and not more. So, opposite party consequently, concluded having resorted to unfair trade practice qua the complainant.

Therefore, we allow this complaint and sequel thereto, direct opposite party to refund Rs.70,000/- to the complainant with 9% interest from the date of deposit till refund. We are not passing order qua amount of Rs.56000/- on the ground that opposite party would have been entitled to charge agreed interest and penal interest on account of delayed payment by the complainant. That amount is set off against this demand. But for causing harassment, agony and sufferance to the complainant, opposite party directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-(Twenty Thousands) and litigation costs of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. Order be complied within 45 days of receipt of copy of order.

Rakesh Sharma s/o R.P. Sharma, H.No.418, Sant Vihar Street No.9, Choorpur Road, Haibowal Rajan Estate, Baloke, Ludhiana.

Versus

1- Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Limited.3, Shakti Nagar, Sheetal Arcade Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana through its Manager.

2- M/s Spark Computer Services Pvt. Ltd. 131, Model Gram, Ludhiana.

1- Case of the complainant in this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is that in August, 2007, approached opposite party no.2, for loan which they agreed to advance at 30% p.a.(reducing). Loan of Rs.27000/- was released and it was inclusive of Rs.1350/- and Rs.1069/- as processing fee and bank charges. The actual loan released was Rs.24581/- under account no.12883298. But he was not made available copy of the loan agreement. There was understanding to advance loan with reducing interest. He had been repaying the loan in due installments. When received statement of account in June, 2008, was surprised to know that loan amount of Rs.30000/- in place of Rs.27000/- was shown and interest rate was changed to 30.51% flat rate, which was never agreed. Loan amount of Rs.30000/- was never advanced to him. Opposite party also wrongly shown in statement of account, insurance charges Rs.3452/- which he had never agreed to pay. So, opposite party resorted to illegal and unfair trade practice. Consequently, the present complaint.

2- Opposite party no.1 took stand in reply that complaint is not maintainable and the transaction between the parties was commercial, so complaint does not lie. Allegations of the complainant are denied. Claimed that complainant applied for loan of Rs.30000/- in August, 2007 which was granted to him on 23.8.2007. But no loan amount of Rs.27000/- applied by the complainant. Net amount of Rs.24581/- was disbursed under loan agreement dated 23.8.2007 after adjusting Rs.1967/- towards processing fee, service tax, Pre-EMI and other charges and Rs.3452/- towards insurance premium in conformity with terms of the agreement. There is no deficiency in service on their part and allegations levelled by the complainant are false. Amount was repayable in 36 equated monthly installments of Rs.1596/-. Till 4.11.2008, complainant only paid 13 installments and still liable to pay 23 installments. A sum of Rs.25,595.53 is due from him towards loan. Amount carried fixed interest @ 30.51%.

3- Opposite party no.2 vide separate reply, claimed that there is no cause of action against them and have been unnecessarily impleaded. Complaint against them not maintainable. They have not denied taking loan by the complainant from opposite party no.1. But claimed that they never induced complainant to take such loan. Loan of Rs.30000/- taken which was repayable with 30.51% interest. Rs.3452/- were rightly deducted on asking of the complainant as insurance charges for which he had given his own consent. Rest of the allegations were also denied.

4- In support of their respective versions, parties adduced evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and scanned the record carefully.

5- In loan agreement Ex.R2, loan amount shown is Rs.30,000/-. It is admitted case of the parties that against this loan account, complainant in fact was paid Rs.24581/-. Though, complainant claimed that loan amount was Rs.27,000/- and not Rs.30,000/-. His this version runs contra to agreement Ex.R2. In order to show that loan amount was Rs.27,000/-, complainant has based himself on handwritten sheet Ex.C3. This sheet according to the complainant, was prepared by Ms Indu employee of the opposite party. We are unable to connect the calculation handwritten sheet Ex.C3 with the present loan account of the complainant. No doubt, on top of that sheet, Rs.27,000/- is recorded and on another corner, Rs.24581/- is written. Complainant vide letter Ex.C1, had accused opposite party of falsifying their account qua this loan account.

6- Statement of account Ex.C2 again records loan amount of Rs.30,000/-, flat interest rate 30.51% and loan repayable in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs.1596/-. In these circumstances, apparent that complainant has nothing at his disposal, to show that loan amount was Rs.27,000/- and not Rs.30,000/-. Though, it is agreed by both the parties that actual amount of Rs.24581/- was advanced to the complainant. It is to be seen whether this amount was advanced out of Rs.30,000/- or Rs.27,000/-. Man may tell lie, but document will never.

7- Let us take plea of the opposite party that loan amount was Rs.30,000/-, as mentioned in the agreement. But they conceded that net amount of Rs.24581/- was disbursed after adjusting Rs.1967/- towards processing fee etc. Rs.3452/- towards insurance premium. So, as per this plea also, loan amount comes to Rs.30,000/-.

8- Now question is whether a sum of Rs.3452/- charged towards insurance premium was ever agreed or sought for or applied by the complainant. Or opposite party of their own without any request from the complainant, charged insurance premium amount of Rs.3452/- from his loan account. On behalf of opposite party, it was pointed that under loan agreement Ex.R2 of which Life Shield Insurance Plan Ex.R4 is appended, goes to show that complainant himself had sought that insurance plan. But this submission deserves rejection. Because the agreement Ex.R2 contains signatures of the complainant.

Whereas Ex.R4 insurance plan is not signed by the complainant. The column of signatures of signatures of insurance company, is left blank. Name of nominee in the insurance, is recorded one Aarti wife of insured complainant. On behalf of complainant, pointed that he has no wife named Aarti and this insurance plan document stands fabricated and planted by the opposite party. Had complainant sought insurance plan, naturally opposite party would have obtained signatures of the complainant thereon. So, it appears that this insurance plan was thrusted by opposite party forcibly of their own, without consent or approval or application of the complainant on him. When complainant had not sought insurance plan against this loan, so opposite party in our view, was not justified to charge Rs.3452/- from the complainant, by doing so, certainly, they would be guilty of resorting to unfair trade practice.

9- Except this illegality committed by the opposite party, there appears no other legal flaw in the dealings. The loan amount was Rs.30,000/- and not Rs.27,000/- repayable with 30.51% interest in 36 equal monthly installments. Hence, for resorting to unfair trade practice, by unnecessarily charging Rs.3452/- from the complainant, we allow this complaint and sequel thereto, direct opposite party to deduct this amount from the very inception of the loan date from account of the complainant, by treating the loan amount Rs.30,000-3452=26548/-. For adhering to such malpractice, opposite party also directed to pay compensation of Rs.6000/- and litigation costs of Rs.2000/- within 45 days of receipt of copy of order.

A.S. Purushothaman,

No.13-B, First Main Road,

Sivasakthi Nagar,

Kolathur,

Chennai – 600 099. …. Complainant



Vs



1. The Proprietor,

M/s. Rathina Stores (Firm) Limited,

Purasawalkam High Road,

Purasawalkam, Chennai – 600 007.



2. The Chief Manager,

Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Limited,

81- Thirumalai Pillai Road,

Chennai – 600 017. ….. Opposite Parties






ORDER





1. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:



The complainant had booked a Whirlpool IMR 27 Elite 6S Steel Refrigerator at a cost of Rs.12,413/- under hire purchase scheme on 05.01.2006 from the 1st opposite party shop and paid Rs.2641/- to the 1st opposite party and also issued 8 post dated cheques in the name of 2nd opposite party who financed for the purchase of Refrigerator. The 1st opposite party did not deliver the refrigerator even after two weeks from the date of billing. When contacted, he was informed that the 2nd opposite party has not released the full amount. The complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party and he was informed that he had released full amount to the 1st opposite party as per the agreement. Again, the complainant contacted the 1st opposite party to deliver the refrigerator but he was asked to pay Rs.281/- in excess of the amount already fixed. The complainant had paid an additional amount of Rs.281/- on 14.03.2006. But even after one month, the 1st opposite party did not deliver the goods to the complainant.


The 2nd opposite party had realized monthly installments of Rs.1229/- for the month of February, March, April, May and June 2006 even without delivery of the refrigerator. Hence, the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties requesting to deliver the refrigerator and also not to release the payment to the first opposite party by the 2nd opposite party. The non delivery of the refrigerator amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant has filed this complaint claiming Rs.12,800/- for non delivery of the goods, and return of the EMI amount, and compensations of Rs.20,000/- for fraudulent transactions, Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and costs.

2. The 1st opposite party filed version and contended inter alia that the 1st opposite party is reputed firm and engaged in the sale of consumer durables. The refrigerator booked by the complainant had been delivered to the complainant. But even in the reply notice, the 1st opposite party would state that he is willing to deliver the refrigerator. The refrigerator had already been delivered to the complainant and the complainant had signed in the copy of the bill towards accepting the delivery of the refrigerator. Therefore, there is no deficiency in-services on the part of the 1st opposite party.

3. After receiving the notice, the 2nd opposite party did not appear before this Forum. Hence, the 2nd opposite party was set exparte.

4. Proof Affidavits have been filed by both the complainant and the 1st opposite party. Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the complainant. Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the 1st opposite party. No document was filed on the side of the 2nd opposite party.

5. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of

the opposite parties?

2) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

6. Point No.1: The complainant had booked Whirlpool IMR 27 Elite 6S Steel Refrigerator from the 1st opposite party under hire purchase scheme on 05.01.2006 for Rs.12,413/- and paid Rs.2,641/- to the opposite party as initial deposit payment. Ex A1 is the cash bill issued by the 1st opposite party dated 05.01.2006. According to the complainant, the refrigerator was not delivered to him. But the financier namely the 2nd opposite party encashed the post dated cheques issued for the amount availed by him for the purchase of refrigerator. The 2nd opposite party had released the entire payment to the 1st opposite party.


When the complainant contacted the 1st opposite party, he was asked to pay Rs.281/- in excess. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.281/- on 14.03.2006. Endorsement was made in Ex A1. But, thereafter the refrigerator was not delivered to the complainant. Ex A2 is the statement of account issued by the 2nd opposite party which would show that they have recovered installments for the months of February, March, April, May, June, July, August and September 2006 at the rate of Rs.1229/- per month. The contention of the complainant is that the Refrigerator was not delivered to him despite payment of entire amount to the 1st opposite party by the 2nd opposite party. Ex A3 is the letter written by the complainant to the opposite parties regarding the non delivery of the refrigerator.

7. The opposite party would submit that refrigerator was delivered to the complainant and he had also acknowledged the same. They have filed Ex B1 to show that the refrigerator was delivered to the complainant. In the written version, they would submit that they are willing to deliver the refrigerator to the complainant without prejudice to their rights to contest this case.

8. We have perused the Ex A1 and B1 which are entirely cash bills. The complainant disputed signature in Ex B1 regarding the receipt of the refrigerator. The opposite party filed petition to send for the bills to documents experts to prove the veracity of genuineness. But, since the steps were not taken, the petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the original bills which are in the hands of the 2nd opposite party could not be secured by the 1st oppose party. The complainant issued notice on 18.04.2006 to the opposite parties regarding the non delivery of the refrigerator. The opposite party contended that the refrigerator was delivered to the complainant and to prove he filed Ex B1. Since the complainant disputed the signature in Ex B1, the opposite party had not taken any steps to send for the bills for documents examination by an expert.


Though the steps have been taken send for to documents expert that could not be examined for want of original bills. The 1st opposite party would submit that the original bill was with the 2nd opposite party. They should have obtained original bill from the 2nd opposite party for expert opinion. As there is no valid and acceptable proof for having delivered the refrigerator, the contention of the opposite party that the refrigerator was delivered to the complainant is not acceptable. That apart, the signature in Ex B1 did not tally with that of the signature found in Ex A3 letter written by the complainant, dated 18.04.2006. Therefore, even on the basis of the records, we do not accept the contention of the opposite parties that the refrigerator has been delivered to the complainant and signature obtained in Ex B1.


Hence, there is deficiency in-service on the part of the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party had encashed the cheques issued by the complainant since he has paid the costs of the refrigerator to the 1st opposite party. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. The complainant claims the value of the refrigerator and he cannot claim any relief against the 2nd opposite party. The non delivery of the refrigerator to the complainant by the 1st opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. The point is answered accordingly.

9. Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is allowed as against the 1st opposite party and dismissed as against the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.12,800/-for non delivery of the Refrigerator to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/-as cost of the complaint to the complainant. The amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

Citi Financial does not give me Loan A/c detail free of cost and said to pay 12
installment instead only 6 installment were remaining and not giving the procedure
to settle my loan a/c. I want to closed my loan a/c

Dr. Geetha, W/o.Sanjeev kumar,

56, Ponnusamy nagar, P.N.Pudur,

Seeranaickenpalayam, Coimbatore-12. --- Complainant

Vs.



1. City Bank, rep.by Manager,Personal loan,

No.2 Club house road, Chennai-2

2. Tarun Credit services, rep.by Manager,

Rasi building, 162,163,Ponnaiarajapuram,

Near Gandhi Park, Coimbatore-1.

3. ATS Services (P) LTd. Rep.by its Manager,

A2, Narina Industrial Area, Phase II

New Delhi 110 028. -- Opposite Parties



This case coming on for final hearing before us on 23.10.09 in the presence of Thiru. P.Ganesan, Advocate for complainant and of M/s.R.Balaji,S.Santhan and A.Sayeedai MD. Arif Hayath, Advocates for 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party remained absent and set exparte and of Thiru J.Lakshminarayanan, Advocate for 3rd opposite party and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:

ORDER

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties to return back the unused cheques obtained by them at the time of sanctioning of loan, to pay the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the deficiently services of the opposite parties and to pay cost of the proceedings.

The averments in the complaints are as follows:

1. The complainant obtained the personal loan for Rs.5 lakhs bearing loan No.N 31-AC 1-1188338 on 27.7.1999. Likewise her father and her sister also obtained loans from the opposite parties on different dates. The 2nd opposite party was the agent of the 1st opposite party. The 3rd opposite party is the present agent of the 1st opposite party. The complainant in the year 2002, came forward to settle the loan amount. After the negotiation with the 2nd opposite party the complainant had paid the sum of Rs.3,05,000 as one time settlement to 2nd opposite party on 25.6.2002, for closing of the loan. The 2nd opposite party had also issued receipt for the same on the same day itself. Likewise, the two loans obtained her the father and her sister of the complainant bearing No.n.31-AC 11173584 and N 31-AC 11205877 respectively were also closed on payment of lumpsum amount. But inspite of repeated demands the opposite parties did not return the unused cheques to the complainant till date.

2. But for the last one month the 1st opposite party is claiming that the complainant has to pay the sum of Rs.10,00,000 towards the loan and threatening the complainant that the 1st opposite party will institute legal action under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. When the complainant checked the claim of the opposite parties, she learnt that the account was not closed and she had a balance around Rs.10 lakhs. The statement account given by the opposite parties also indicates the same balance amount. The complainant learnt that the opposite parties failed to close the amount though the complainant had paid Rs.3,05,000 towards one time settlement of the loan. The act of the opposite parties are unlawful and unethical and against banking law.

3. The acts of the opposite parties are amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant is a medical practitioner by profession. She is having good reputation in the society. The act of the opposite parties has severely affected the complainant. Therefore the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the complainant for their deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.

The averments in the counter of 1st opposite party are as follows:



4. The Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, have no jurisdiction to entertain matters pertaining to accounts and only competent Civil Court can entertain the same. The compensation claimed by the complainant is beyond reasonable imagination and concocted which is without any cogent evidence or material for it to be considered. As it is settled principle that there should be evidence on record to establish any loss or injury alleged to have been suffered by the complainant.

The averments in the counter of 2nd opposite partyare as follows:

5. ,. The cheques in question are not in possession of this 3rd opposite party. The alleged cause of action does not give any case of consumer dispute, as the case is that of debtor and creditor, the complainant is not a consumer and such cases can be dealt only by civil court and it is respectfully submitted that this Forum, has no jurisdiction and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6. The complainant and opposite parties have filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A4 was marked and no documents were marked on the side of the opposite parties.



The point for consideration is

Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service? If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?



ISSUE 1

7. The case of the Complainant is that she availed a personal loan of Rs.5 lakhs from the 1st opposite party through 2nd opposite party on 27.7.1999 and similarly loans were availed by her family members. At the time of sanctioning of the loan 2nd opposite party demanded and received few cheques from her after settlement of entire loan on 25.6.2002 the opposite party failed to return the cheques till date. Hence this complaint.

8. The case of the 1st opposite party is that this Forum is not having jurisdiction to entertain this case, complainant is not a consumer. The relief sought by the complainant is against the procedures of the Act and it is hit by Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act and the compensation claimed by the complainant is beyond the reasonable imagination.

9. The case of the 3rd opposite party is that cheques in question or not in possession of 3rd opposite party. The alleged cause of action does not give any case of consumer dispute and with regard to return back the unused cheques at the time of sanctioning of loan is not in possession of the 3rd opposite party.

10. The complainant obtained a personal loan of Rs.5 lakhs bearing Loan No.N 31-AC 101188338 on 27.7.99 and the entire amount was paid on 25.6.02 is not disputed by the parties. The 1st opposite party in its counter statement did not specifically denied the averments made in the complaint. It did not say any word about the loan transaction and the receipt issued by 2nd opposite party. The mere contention that this Forum is not having jurisdiction to entertain this complaint cannot be accepted.

It is settled law these type of cases are maintainable before consumer Forums. Moreover the dispute in the present case is a consumer dispute. As rightly pointed out by the complainant the failure of the opposite parties 1 and 2 to close the account after receiving full time settlement amount is only to be discussed and not the complainant’s transaction. The receipt dt.25.6.2002 viz.Ex.A2 shows that the lumpsum payment of Rs.3,05,000. Ex.A3 and A4 are such notices sent by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant. The act of 1st opposite party in sending the legal notices demanding money after filing of this complaint is amounts to deficiency of service. The opposite party fails to rectify the mistakes even after filing of this complaint. Therefore the opposites parties 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

11.In the result, we direct the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to return back the unused cheques obtained by them at the time of sanctioning of loan and to pay Rs.20,000 as compensation towards the deficiently services of the opposite parties and to pay cost of Rs.1000 to the complainant within two months from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This complaint as against the 3rd opposite party is dismissed.

C.C.NO.235/2009

Tuesday, the 29th day of December, 2009

B.Dhinakar,

4/16, Panneer Selvam street I

NS Nagar, Othakalmandapam,

Coimbatore 641 032. --- Complainant
Vs.

The Branch Manager,

Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd.

442/443, Cross cut road, Coimbatore-12 --- Opposite Party

This case coming on for final hearing before us on 23.12.09 in the presence of M/s.S.Sakthi Ganapathy and S.Shanmugam, Advocates for complainant and of M/s.Kanth Associates, New Delhi and S.Rajesh, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:
ORDER

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite party to reverse and remove the entry stated as Cheque Bouncing charges and to pay to the complainant the excess EMI of Rs.1838, refund the amount of Rs.281 collected statement charges, to pay Rs.75,000 by way of compensation towards the mental agony and sufferings and to pay cost of the proceedings.

The averments in the complaint are as follows:

1. The complainant has availed a personal loan of Rs.35,000 vide account No.15253266, repayable by way of EMI of Rs.1838 for 30 months. Towards the EMI due for the month of August 2008 the opposite party has collected the EMI amount twice, once by way of ECS clearing of Rs.1838, on 14.8.08 and an amount of Rs.1838 was collected in cash by the opposite party’s executive on the same day, vide Collection Deposit Slip No.90808. Hence this complaint.1

The counter Statement filed by the opposite party are as follows:

2. The complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complaint is not consumer as defined by section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant had availed a Personal loan of Rs.35,000 vide Loan Agreement No. 15253266 on or about 21.5.08 which was repayable in 30 EMIs of Rs.1838 each.

3. The ECS presented for the month of August 2008 on 5.8.08 had been dishonoured in the bank of the complainant on 9.8.08 for insufficiency of fund for which the complainant had made him liable to pay cheque bouncing charges as per the terms and conditions of the Loan agreement executed between the parties. The complainant had requested the opposite party to send a representative to collect the EMI for the month of August 2008 and thus the EMI for the month of August 2008 had been credited into the Loan account of the complainant in cash. In the meantime the said ECS presented in the bank of the complainant for the second time had also been got honoured on 19.8.08. The second presentation of the ECS was done in good faith in order to save the complainant from being a defaulter in the CIBIL’s list. The extra EMI credited into the Loan Account of the complainant in the month of August, 2008 had been refunded to the complainant vide cheque No.776089 dated 24.2.09, after deduction of an amount of Rs.225 as bouncing charges from the said EMI amount.

4. The opposite party issued statement of account to customers after a nominal payment of Rs.281 only as transaction charges. The ECS presented in the bank of the complainant had been bounced in the month of August, 2008. The same is evident from a copy of the statement of account of the complainant’s loan account. Inspite of sending a proper reply dt.2.3.09 to the legal notice dt.17.12.08 issued by the complainant, the complainant had file this present complaint in order to harass the pressurize the opposite party.

5. The complainant and the opposite parties have filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to 10 was marked on side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to B3 was marked on side of the opposite party.

The point for consideration is

Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service? If so what relief the complainant is entitled to?
ISSUE 1

6. The case of the Complainant is that towards EMI due for the month of August 2008 the opposite party has collected the EMI amount twice, once by way of ECS clearing of Rs.1838 on 14.8.08 and an amount of Rs.1838 was collected in cash on the same day vide Collection Deposit Slip No.90808, the complainant was forced to pay Rs.281 for getting a copy of statement and debited his account for Rs.225 as cheque bouncing charges which they are not entitled to.

7. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant is not a consumer, the ECS presented in the bank of the complainant had been bounced in the month of August 2008. The EMI credited into the Loan account of the complainant in the month of 2008, had been refunded to the complainant on 24.2.2009 after deducting of an amount of Rs.225, and inspite of sending proper reply on 2.3.2009 the present complaint is filed.

8. The service rendered by the opposite party is admitted in the written version and as per Loan Agreement the opposite party has charged the service tax for the service rendered. Hence the complainant is a consumer and the opposite party is a service provided and as such the present complaint is maintainable before this Forum.

9. The plea taken by the opposite party that the ECS for the month of Agusut 2008 was dishonoured is not proved. But as per Ex.A9 Bank statement the complainant has proved that there are no sort of cheque a ECS that was returned unpaid. Hence Ex.B1 is a created document for the purpose of this case. Because of this the complainant was forced to get a copy of statement, so the opposite party is not entitled to collect Rs.281/- as transaction charges.

10. The Extra EMI credited into the loan account of the complainant in the month fo August 2008 had been refunded to the complainant vide cheque No.776089 dt.24.2.09 after deduction of an amount of Rs.225 as bouncing charges as per Ex.A7 (1838-225 = 1613). Since the mistake is committed by the opposite parties, they are not entitled to deduct Rs.225 as bouncing charges.

11. Hence we are of the view that the documents produced shows that the complainant’s claim is very genuine, complainant suffered great mental agony due to the defective service of the opposite party. Hence the complainant is entitled to get proper and necessary relief from this Forum.

In the result, we direct the opposite party to reverse and remove the entry stated as cheque Bouncing charges and refund Rs.225 being the cheque bouncing charges, to refund Rs.281/- collected as transaction charges, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000 as compensation for mental agony and sufferings and to pay cost of Rs.1000/- within two months from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Pronounced by us in Open Forum on this the 29th day of December, 2009.

C.C.NO.363/2008

Wednesday, the 23rd day of December, 2009

Mr. V. Senthil Kumar,

S/o. A. Velusamy,

28, Pari Illam, V.K. Nagar,

Kavundampalayam,

Coimbatore – 641 030. --- Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s. CITI FINANCIAL CONSUMER

FINANCE INDIA LTD.,

No. 2, Local Shopping Center,

2nd Floor, Pushpavihar,

New Delhi – 110 062.

2. M/s. CITI FINANCIAL CONSUMER

FINANCE INDIA LTD.,

657, Avinashi Road,

Thristar Accommodations Ltd.,

Pappanaickenpalayam,

Coimbatore – 641 037. --- Opposite Parties

This case coming on for final hearing before us on 21.12.09 in the presence of Thiru. K. Shanmugam & S.Radhakrishnan, Advocates for complainant and of Thiru.A. Prem Abraham, and Thiru.M. Suresh, Advocates for the opposite parties and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:

ORDER

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties to pre-closure of the personal loan account by receiving the due amount with nominal rate of interest upon the balance payable principle amount, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant, and to pay cost of the proceedings.

The averments in the complaint are as follows:

1. The opposite parties are financial company and dealing with money lending and other financial services and having one branch at Coimbatore. The 2nd opposite party is a branch of 1st opposite party and doing the finance business and looking after the business activities of the 1st opposite party in the area of Coimbatore. The complainant is a Government employee and servicing at Coimbatore. He had availed personal loan from the 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party have chosen to obtain several signatures from the complainant in blank papers, four unfilled signed cheque leafs of M/s. UTI Bank, Coimbatore, bearing Nos. 070721, 070722, 070723 and 070724, and in some unfilled printed forms and assured to grant loan in a nominal rate of interest. The 2nd opposite party had sanctioned a sum of Rs.35,000/- as a personal loan A/c. No. 8808338 to him.

2. The 2nd opposite party had issued a cheque in favour of the complainant for disbursing the loan by deducting a sum of Rs.1,800/-. The schedule of repayment was issued only after repeated requests of the complainant. The complainant was very much shocked by seeing the schedule of repayment, because the rates of interest have been charged as 30.03% at flat rate upon the loan amount. As per the repayment schedule the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.1,848/- per month in 36 installments. As per that calculations in the schedule he has to repay a total sum of Rs.66,528/- for the availed the loan amount of Rs.35,000/- In fact he has received only a sum of Rs.33,200/- for the same he has to pay interest alone a sum of Rs.33,328/- i.e. more than the loan amount availed. The complainant has paid 19 installments so for without any default, through E.C.S. i.e. till the February 2008, total amount repaid is a sum of Rs.35,112/- .

3. For the past few months the complainant is requesting the opposite parties for pre-closure of the loan account, due to charging of the exorbitant rate of interest. The opposite parties have chosen to state that if the entire remaining installments due were paid in full then the loan account would be closed. He is always ready and willing to pay the amount if the opposite parties have provided the details of the amount payable by charging of nominal interest. The complainant has issued a legal notice dated 28.02.2008 to the opposite parties by requesting the pre-closure of loan account by charging nominal interest upon the remaining principle loan amount, but there was no reply. The actions of the opposite parties are not fair on their part, which is against the law and justice. The opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in service and will have to make good the loss incurred by the complainant.

The counter Statement filed by the opposite parties are as follows:

4. The complainant is not ‘Consumer’ as defined by Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. No cause of action even arose in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties to file the present complaint. The issue as to whether the rate of interest being charged by the opposite party is excessive or not is beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite parties had lent money to the complainant, hence there is the relation of Debtor and Creditor, between the parties herein. The complainant had availed a personal loan in the sum of Rs.35,000/- from the opposite party and at the time of availing the said loan the complainant had signed and executed the loan agreement and loan application form for the purpose of availing the said loan.

5. The opposite parties ever took complainant’s signature on any unfilled printed forms, as alleged. The rate of interest is being charged in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement executed between the parties at the time of sanctioning the said loan. According to the said loan agreement the interest on the said loan was to be charged @ 30.03% p.a. The complainant had availed the said personal loan in the sum of Rs.35,000/- from the opposite party and the opposite party had disbursed the said loan in the sum of Rs.35,000/- itself, however, a net amount of Rs.33,939/- was disbursed to the complainant after deducting a sum of Rs.1,061/- towards the processing fee, service tax and other statutory charges in accordance with the terms of the said loan agreement.

6. The complainant is a chronic defaulter and as on 19.01.2009, the complainant is still liable to pay a sum of Rs.21,572/15 towards the foreclosure of the said loan account. The complainant ever requested the complainant for the pre-closure of the said loan account, as alleged or other wise. It is denied that any legal notice dated 28.02.2008, issued by the complainant, ever received by the opposite parties therefore, the question of giving any reply to the same by the opposite party, does not arise.



7. The complainant and the opposite parties have filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A5 was marked on side of the complainant and B1 to B3 was marked on side of the opposite parties.

The point for consideration is

Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service? If so what relief the complainant is entitled to?

ISSUE 1

8. The grievance of the Complainant is

(a) The opposite parties have chosen to charge higher rate of interest in

contrary to assurance for charging nominal rate of interest while

granting loan.
(b) He has issued a legal notice dated 28.02.2008 to the opposite parties

by requesting the pre closure of loan account by charging nominal

interest upon remaining principle loan amount but there was no reply.

9. The contention of the opposite parties is

(a) The issue as to whether the rate of interest being is excess or not

cannot be questioned by this Forum and the rate of interest is being

charged in accordance with the terms and conditions of the

loan agreement.

(b) The complainant never approached the opposite parties for the Pre-

Closure of the said loan account and no notice is received by the

Opposite parties.

10(a) The complainant had availed a personal loan of Rs.35,000/- from the opposite parties, had signed and executed the loan agreement and loan application form for the purpose of availing the said loan. Not only that the complainant had subscribed to the Electronic Clearing System (E.C.S.) for making payments of the equated monthly installments. As per this system he had instructed his banker to debit his bank account. As per Ex.A2 AXIS Bank statement Rs.1,848/- being debited in his account for each and every month. Ex.B2 is the loan agreement, the complainant had entered into the said agreement according to the said loan agreement, the interest on the said loan was to be charged @ 30.03% The complainant never objected for deducting the charges.

More over the issue whether the rate of interest being charged by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties excessive or not is beyond the purview of this Forum has held in the matters reported as

Venkatanarayanan V. The Manager, LIC of India

III (1995) CPJ 37

Hence the opposite parties are charging interest as per agreement and the complainant’s allegation that the opposite parties have chosen to charge higher rate of interest is false.

(b) The Legal Notice dated 28.02.2008 is marked as Ex.A3, Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 are the acknowledgement cards for the receipt of Notice dated 28.02.2009 on 12.03.2008 and 13.03.2008. But the receipt of this Notice is denied by the opposite parties in their counter Para 8, but, the opposite parties have taken a different stand in the proof affidavit. Hence we are of the view that the opposite parties have received the notice dated 28.02.2008 but fails to give any reply to the complainant. In the Notice the complainant made a request to both the opposite parties to send the details for the pre closure of his loan account by charging nominal rate of interest. But there was no reply from the opposite parties. The opposite parties went to the extent of denying the receipt of notice dt.28.2.08. Upto Feb.2008 installments due were collected through E.C.S. The opposite parties received the Notice but not issued any reply or come forward to comply the demand of the complainant. The opposite parties have chosen to take indifferent attitude instead of giving a proper answer and pre-close the loan account of the complainant. The actions of the opposite parties are not fair on their part and they are guilty of deficiency in service and will have to make good the loss incurred by the complainant.

11. In the result, we direct the opposite parties to permit the complainant to pre close his personal loan account by receiving the due amount with agreed rate of interest (30.03%) upto 13.03.2008 (the date of receipt of legal Notice) upon the principle amount and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay Rs.1000 as cost within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Pronounced by us in Open Forum on this the 23rd day of December, 2009.

Dear Sir,

i have purchased two products washing machine and domestic flour mill machine before two years. We have already cleared the payments of washing machine and emi of flour machine is pending. That too was due to cheque misplaced or lost from your end. For that also your executive called and we have co-operated and paid the amount of that lost / misplaced cheque. Details are given below

Ref. No. 13024360, deposit slip no. 93488 01799, dtd. 13/04/10 amounting to Rs. 770.00 by cash, to GATHA COLLECTION AGENCY, AHMEDABAD.

Now on 25/04/2010 between 5 to 6 p.m i have received a call from your Mumbai office no. 022-61547315, caller name is Vinod not confirmed whether the name is true or not. As it was sunday so i told the executive not to call on sunday we will speak on monday and i disconnected the phone. After that he started calling and calling and irritated us and when i picked the phone he started abusing as MERI BATT TUMKO SUNI PADEGI, CHUTIYE etc, etc.

Due to which i was disturbed and have to cancel all my schedules and switched off my phone for whole day.

Please look into the matter and let me know the action you have taken A S A P otherwise i will forced to go to consumer court for necessary action.


Shailesh Vala
M: 09978904008

I took loan of Rs. 20,000 from Citi Finance. Rs. 1106/- of EMIs of 36 months. I paid Rs. 39,816/- against my loan (completed 36 EMIs). Now there was due Rs. 5200/- against my loan due to 6 EMIs bouncing charges. How to get rid of this case. Now I am getting calls from Citi Finance to pay of Rs. 5200/-. How to get NOC or Closure Letter. If I don't pay this bouncing charges will I be in trouble. Please, badly I need help form you.