Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/304/2017

Corporation Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Anil Kumar Kundle - Opp.Party(s)

Tribhuwan Singla, Adv.

08 Jan 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	304 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	07.12.2017
Date of Decision	:	08.01.2018

 

Corporation Bank, SCO No.137-138, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

…..Appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

 

Versus

 

1. Anil Kumar Kundle son of Sh. Mast Ram (earlier resident of H.No. 648, Dashmesh Nagar, Naya Gaon, District Mohali), now resident of H.No.544, Dashmesh Nagar, Naya Gaon, District Mohali.

…..Respondent/Complainant.

 

2. M/s Capital First Limited, India Bulls Finance Centre, SCO No. 56, Sector 26-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager/ authorized Signatory.

 

 …..Respondent/Opposite Party No.1.

 

 

Appeal U/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

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

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh. Harsh Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

 

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.10.2017, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it partly allowed Consumer Complaint bearing No.1053 of 2016, with the following directions:-

 

“7.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party No.2 is deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.2, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party No.2 is directed:-

 

[a]  To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

          The complaint against Opposite Party No.1 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

8.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.2; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [b].”

  

2.             The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a Sony LED T.V. from M/s Ashoka Enterprises, Naya Gaon, Mohali, by financing the same from Opposite Party No.1. The loan amount of Rs.35,820/- was to be paid in equated monthly installments of Rs.1900/- each, which were to be deducted through ECS. The 2^nd, 3^rd & 4^th installments were deducted through ECS. However, 5^th, 6^th, 7^th  & 8^th  installments got bounced, despite having sufficient balance in the account of the Complainant, which were then paid in cash. It was further stated that on account of bouncing of installments, Opposite Party No.1 charged bouncing charges, as also overdue charges. The Complainant then approached Opposite Party No.1, to know the exact reasons for bouncing and waive off the ECS bouncing/overdue charges but he was told that ECS bounced due to R7 report but no concrete document regarding the same was ever provided to him. After exchange of numerous emails, the complainant stopped payment of further EMI under protest. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.             In its written statement, Opposite Party No.1, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant was informed that the installments were dishonoured by his Bank and he was required to check for the reasons thereof. It was further stated that the complainant was provided R7 report (Memo of dishonor), which showed the reason for dishonor as “Miscellaneous”. It was further stated that the complainant was requested to speak to his Bank for clarification and the only duty of Opposite Party No.1 was to present the installment on time. It was further stated that it was the responsibility of the complainant to ensure clearance of installment. It was further stated that once the agreement was entered into between the complainant and Opposite Party No.1, the complainant could not stop the re-payment of loan and he would be liable for other charges as per agreement. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice. Remaining averments were denied being wrong.

4.             Since none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte by the Forum.

5.             After hearing Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, allowed the complaint against Opposite Party No.2 and dismissed the same against Opposite Party No.1, as stated above. 

6.             The core question, which falls for consideration, in the instant appeal, is whether there was deficiency in rendering service on the part of the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, in redressing the grievance of respondent No.1/complainant. The answer to this question is in the affirmative. It is on record that after issuance of notice, Sh. Vikas Aggarwal, Chief Manager put in appearance on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 on 08.02.2017 and the case was fixed for 05.04.2017 for filing reply and evidence/affidavit. On the next date of hearing i.e. 05.04.2017, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 and it was proceeded against exparte. It is evident on record that vide email dated 04.03.2016 (Annexure C-4 colly.), respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1 requested respondent No.1/complainant to seek clarification from his bank qua R7 report for bouncing of installment. R7 report (Memo of dishonor) showed the reason of dishonor as “Miscellaneous”. When approached by respondent No.1/complainant, the appellant/Opposite                 Party No.2 did not pay any deed to his request and redress his grievance. The appellant/Opposite Party No.2 was required to explain the clear and categoric reason for dishonor in its report. By not doing so, the appellant/Opposite Party No.2 certainly indulged into unfair trade practice. Since the averments made in the complaint have gone unrebutted in the absence of Opposite Party No.2 (Corporation Bank), the Forum, in Para 6 of its order, rightly observed that Opposite Party No.2 certainly and definitely             indulged into unfair trade practice, as it was incumbent upon it (Opposite Party No.2) to promptly redress the concern of the complainant, which it did not, even after specific requests of the complainant, resulting into immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant. As such, Opposite Party No.2 could not escape its liability and was liable to compensate the complainant. Hence, the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.

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

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

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

Pronounced.

08.01.2018                                                     

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

 

[PADMA PANDEY]

       MEMBER

 

Ad