Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/238/2016

Sahil Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Balbir Singh Rana

31 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/238/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	06/04/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	31/08/2017

 

 

 

 

 

[1]  Sahil Rana S/o Sh. Sanjay Rana, R/o H.No. 117, Phase-2, Sector-B, Defence Colony, Ambala Cantt. Haryana.

 

[2]  Kajal W/o Sh. Sanjay Rana, R/o H.No. 117, Phase-2, Sector-B, Defence Colony, Ambala Cantt. Haryana.

 

….Complainants

Vs.

 

[1]  Tata Capital Financial Services Limited, through its Manager, SCO No. 56, 2^nd Floor, Sector 26-D, U.T. Chandigarh – 160019.

 

[2]  Tata Capital Financial Services Limited, through its Managing Director, I think Techno Campus, A Wing Fourth Floor, Opposite Pokhram Road No.2, Thane West-400607 & Dr. V.B. Gandhi Mark, Fort Mumbai – 400001.

 

[3]  Sh. Gaurav, Agent of Tata Capital Financial Services limited, Resident of House No. 584, Sector 8, Ambala City, Haryana.

 

[4]  Oriental Bank of Commerce, through its Branch Manager, Ambala, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt. Haryana.

 

[5]  Oriental Bank of Commerce, through its M.D. and C.E.O., Plot No.5, Institutional Area, Sector 32, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001.

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:   SH. SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainants	:	Sh. Balbir Singh Rana, Advocate.
For OP No.1 & 2	:	Sh. Vikrant Guleria, Advocate.
For OP No.3	:	None.
For OP No.4 & 5	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 sanctioned a car loan to the Complainant No.1 amounting to Rs.3,03,569/- for Volkswagen Jetta second hand car on 05.01.2016 under Loan Account No. 7000333270, which was to be repaid in 36 EMIs of Rs.10570/- each. The due date for payment of monthly installment would be 3^rd of every calendar month. It has been alleged that without releasing the sanctioned loan amount, in favour of Complainant No.1, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 sent the ECS to clear the EMI of Rs.10,750/- to the Opposite Party No.4 (Banker of Complainant No.2) on 03.02.2016 for clearance, but the said ECS was not cleared and the Complainant No.2 had to pay Rs.95/- towards bouncing charges. The Complainants, thereafter, visited the Opposite Party No.1, upon which against total sanctioned loan, an amount of Rs.2,75,850/- was transferred to the Opposite Party No.4 in Account No.07322191004876 through NEFT on 04.02.2016. Thereafter, on 03.03.2016, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 again sent ECS to clear the EMI of Rs.10,750/- to Opposite Party No.4 and again ECS was not cleared, despite having sufficient balance in the account of Complainant No.2 for which she had to pay Rs.95/- towards ECS bouncing charges. Eventually, the Complainant No.1 got served a legal notice dated 08.03.2016 upon the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 to release the balance amount of Rs.27,719/-, to link the Bank Account of Complainant No.2 to ECS to clear the EMIs of Rs.10,750/- through ECS clearing system, to refund of Rs.190/- which was wrongly debited from them towards bouncing charges on 03.02.2016 and 03.03.2016. Even, Complainant No.2 also served legal notice dated 08.03.2016 upon the Opposite Parties No.4 & 5 to stop bouncing EMIs through ECS clearing system, to stop unnecessarily imposing penalty of Rs.95/- every month and to keep regular clear EMIs of Rs.10,570/- through ECS clearing system. However, the said legal notices were not responded and nothing was done till date by all the Opposite Parties. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainants, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainants have filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

  

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in their joint written statement has stated that they had sanctioned an amount of Rs.3,03,569/- in the month of Dec.2015 and disbursed the same to the Opposite Party No.3 who is their Direct Sales Agent (DSA), where after deduction of KLI and Service Charges, an amount of Rs.2,95,850/- was to be released to the Complainant account after satisfaction of documents. The 1^st EMI date was 03.02.2016. The Complainant was bound to deposit updated R.C. in favour of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, to the Opposite Party No.3, but he did not deposit the same within stipulated period of time due to which only Rs.20,000/- was credited to the Complainant account in the month of January 2016 as a partial payment of loan. The Complainant deposited the updated R.C in the month of March, 2016. It has been pleaded that the bouncing charges were paid by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to the Bank as per norms. The burden is on the Opposite Parties No.4 & 5 to justify how the EMI bounced couple of times. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     Opposite Party No.3 in its reply has stated that an amount of Rs.3,03,569/- was sanctioned as loan for old car. KLI charges of Rs.3,569/-, valuation, stamp duty and ECS charges were about Rs.4,150/- which were included in the said amount of Rs.3,03,569/- and same were to be released in the account of Complainant No.2 after satisfaction of documents. It has been pleaded that the 1^st EMI date was 03.02.2016. The Complainant was bound to deposit updated R.C. in favour of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to the answering Opposite Party No.3, but Complainant did not done so till the stipulated period. An amount of Rs.20,000/- was transferred by the answering Opposite Party in the account of Complainant No.2 on 20.01.2016 as advance/partial payment for purchase of car through NEFT. The 1^st EMI was got dishonor by Opposite Parties No.4 & 5 due to reasons best known to them. However, bouncing charges of Rs.92/- were paid by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to the Bank as per norms. The Complainant deposited the updated R.C. in the month of Feb. 2016 and the remaining payment of loan of Rs.2,75,850/- was transferred in the account of the Complainant No.2 on 03.02.2016. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on his part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.     Opposite Parties No.4 and 5, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have pleaded that the Complainant did not comply with the requisite formalities of ECS Clearing System and not sent the debit mandate which was duly signed by the Complainant and the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

6.     The Complainant also filed replication to the respective written statements filed by the Opposite Parties, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statements by the Opposite Parties have been controverted.

 

7.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

8.     We have heard the Ld. Counsel for Opposite Parties and also perused the record, with utmost care and circumspection.

 

9.     The main grievance of the Complainants is that before disbursal of the loan amount, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 had sent the demand for the ECS to the Banker of the Complainant No.2 (Opposite Parties No.4 & 5), because of which the ECS bounced and bouncing charges of Rs.92/- were charged by the Opposite Parties No.4 & 5.

 

10.     On perusal of the loan sanction letter (Annexure C-2) placed on record by the Complainants, we find that the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 had sanctioned an amount of Rs.3,03,569/- and the repayment was to commence with effect from 03.02.2016. Annexure C-3 which is repayment schedule shows that after recovery of 1^st installment amount of Rs.10,750/- on 03.02.2016, the principal amount shall reduce to Rs.2,97,450.31P. But, on perusal of Annexure C-4, we find that the sanctioned amount was deposited in the account of the Complainants on 04.02.2016, wherein the ECS bouncing charges of Rs.92/- has been recovered on 03.02.2016, which to our mind amounts to deficiency in service as the EMI cannot be recovered before the disbursal of the loan amount. 

11.     In the light of above observations, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 alone, and the same is partly allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.92/- of the ECS bouncing charges;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

[c]  To pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation.

          The complaint against Opposite Parties No.3 to 5 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

12.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% p.a. on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] and [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].  

 

13.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

31^st August, 2017                                    Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                     Sd/- 

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”