Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Instant Appeal is directed against the Order dated 10-10-2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata – I (North) in C.C. No. 302/2012 whereof the complaint has been allowed.
Brief facts of the complaint case are that the Complainant availed of a loan amounting to Rs. 14,000/- vide Loan A/c No. 4100CD00148666 from the OPs for the purpose of purchasing an AC on 01-05-2011. Subsequently, as the dealer of AC Machine, M/s Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd. did not supply the AC Machine in time, the Complainant cancelled the said deal and signed necessary papers as provided by the concerned official of M/s Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd., who confirmed that the loan account being no. 4100CD00148666 had been duly cancelled and the advance amount of Rs. 7,000/- paid by the Complainant to M/s Great Eastern Appliances Pvt. Ltd., was returned to her.
Thereafter, the Complainant purchased the AC Machine from another dealer on 12-05-2011 with the financial assistance rendered by the OPs vide Loan A/c No. 4100CD00162819. It is further stated that the agent of the OPs collected Rs. 1,750/- from her on 22-07-2011 stating that the same was required for insurance purpose. Subsequently, on scrutiny of her bank account, the Complainant found that the OPs not only realized EMI in respect of her Loan A/c No. 4100CD00162819, but also realized an amount of Rs. 1,750/- in respect of the cancelled Loan A/c No. 4100CD00148666. Not only that, the OPs also tried to realize EMIs in respect of her aforesaid cancelled Loan A/c in future also but, failed to do so as the Complainant kept only the EMI amount in respect of the Loan A/c No. 4100CD00162819 only in the concerned bank account. As a result, Complainant’s banker debited service charges to her account.
After obtaining Statement of Account from the OPs, the Complainant found that on 01-05-2011, an amount of Rs. 7,000/- was received by them and subsequently, the same was adjusted with the dealer since the Complainant cancelled the loan agreement and got back the deposited amount of Rs. 7,000/- from the dealer. To the utter surprise of the Complainant, it was noticed that the status of the disputed loan account was shown as ‘active’ and the OPs realized EMIs regularly from the Complainant. Although the Complainant brought the anomaly to the notice of the OPs, the latter instead of taking effective steps to rectify their mistake, the OPs vide its letter dated 17-10-2011 claimed an amount of Rs. 3,500/- from her. Subsequently, they started making annoying telephone calls to her to cough up the illegally demanded amount. Hence, the complaint.
OPs contested the case by filing vakalatnama. Besides denying all the material allegations, the OPs stated that the Complainant availed of financial assistance from them for a sum of Rs. 21,000/- being Loan A/c No. 4100CD00148666. She was required to pay Rs. 1,750/- as EMI to repay the said loan. The Complainant paid Rs. 1,750/- being the first EMI on 22-07-2011. Although the Complainant stated to have cancelled the said loan, necessary intimation to this effect did not reach the Pune H.O. of the OPs. Therefore, the OPs started realizing the EMI amount from the Complainant through ECS by virtue of necessary mandate given by the Complainant. Subsequently, however, the OPs refunded an amount of Rs. 3,500/- to the Complainant [Cash paid on 22-07-2011 and ECS got cleared in June, 2011]. It is further stated that since the ECS request sent to Complainant’s bank got dishonoured on account of ‘insufficient funds’ thereafter, these OPs did not place ECS request. It is also submitted that a sum was of Rs. 7,000/- was given to the dealer which admittedly was received by the Complainant. Accordingly, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Decision with reasons
Heard the Ld. Advocates and perused the material on record.
The dispute, as it appears, centered around Loan A/c No. 4100CD00148666. According to the Respondent, since the dealer concerned could not supply the ordered goods in time, she was compelled to cancel the order and accordingly, the dealer returned the advance money to her and further confirmed that the concerned loan, i.e. Loan A/c No. 4100CD00148666 got closed. On the other hand, it is claimed by the Appellant that as its H.O. was duly not apprised of such development either by the Respondent or by the dealer in question in time, it placed its demand before the Respondent’s banker for payment of EMI acting on the ECS mandate given to it by the Respondent.
At first blush, it may appear to be the outcome of communication gap between the parties concerned; however, a deeper look into the material on record proves otherwise.
First of all, it is hardly believable that a dealer would act so irresponsibly and would sit tight over the financed sum and/or falter in refunding the loan amount to the financier in the wake of cancellation of order. The Appellant has neither clarified when the financed sum was refunded to it by the dealer concerned nor attached copy of any communiqué whereof it sought for due clarification from the dealer regarding its alleged failure to communicate due intimation to the Appellant in time.
Further, on a reference to the illegible copy of Statement of Account of the Appellant in respect of Loan A/c No. 4100CD00148666 it transpires that within a few days of receiving advance amount of Rs. 7,000/- from the Respondent, the same was returned to her through the dealer. Although the date of return of such advance is not visible from the Statement of Account, it does seem from the said statement that the advance amount was returned to the Respondent before the due date of repayment of 1st EMI which, clearly belies the contention of the Appellant that it did not have any inclination that the Respondent cancelled the concerned order which virtually reduced such financial arrangement into a nullity.
The Respondent has stated under affidavit that she approached the H.O. of the Appellant in July, 2011 to rectify the mistake on its part. Despite this, as it appears, the Appellant not only served demand notice upon the Respondent in October, 2011 to repay the alleged defaulted EMIs in respect of Loan A/c No. 4100CD00148666, but also took nearly 1½ years to issue cheque in order to refund Rs. 3,500/- being the amount of two EMIs. Meanwhile, although the Respondent served legal notice upon the Appellant through her Ld. Advocate on 28-06-2012, the Appellant chose to ignore it without making any effort to resolve the grievance of the Respondent. It is also intriguing that although the Appellant sought to refund Rs. 3,500/- to the Respondent, it did not offer to make good the loss suffered by the Respondent due to bank charges being levied by her banker over non-clearance of ECS demands of the Appellant.
Against such backdrop, by allowing the instant complaint, the Ld. District merely imparted justice to a genuinely aggrieved lady. We, therefore, see no cogent ground to interfere with the same in any manner whatsoever.
Appeal, thus, fails.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the Appeal stands dismissed on contest against the Respondent, but without any cost. The impugned order is hereby affirmed.
Let the LCR be returned to the Ld. District Forum forthwith together with a copy of this order.
