Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/52/2019

Sumathi Dandagala, D/o D.Muragaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, IndusInd Bank Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

S.A.K.Jakir Hussain

05 Feb 2020

ORDER

                                                                                                                               

           Filing Date: 09-05-2019   

Order Date: 05-02-2020

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

 

Present:-  Sri. T.Anand, President (FAC)

      Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

WEDNESDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

 

C.C.No.52/2019

Between

Sumathi Dandagala, D/o. D. Muragaiah,

Hindu, aged about 29 years, Door No.7-15,

Vaddipalli, Durga Samudram Village & Post,

Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District,

No.E-mail I.D., Cell No. 9703219602,

Aadhar No.382673135664.                                                     … Complainant

 

And

1. The Branch Manager, IndusInd Bank Ltd.,

Having its Branch office at Flat No.205/A,

Chenji Plaza, Opposite to State Bank of India,

Tilak Road Branch, K.T.Road, Tirupati,

Chittoor District.

 

2. The General Manager, IndusInd Bank Ltd.,

Having its head office at Door No.5/6,

Swethambar, Bazulla Road, T.Nagar,

Chennai, Tamilnadu State.                                          … Opposite Parties

 

         This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 18.12.2019 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.S.A.K.Jakir Hussain, counsel for the complainant and Sri. L.Madhusudhan Reddy, counsel for the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 is remained exparte having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

         This complaint is filed under section 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, praying for direction to the opposite parties to issue N.O.C and to return the three cheques given by guarantor at the time of granting loan and also return the original R.C pertaining to the vehicle and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and  to pay costs of the litigation.

          2.The complaint averments are as follows:- The complainant purchased Hero Honda Pleasure two wheeler vehicle 102CC Normal, bearing registration No.AP03/BP 9665, vide Chassis No. MBLJF16EJFGCO5008, vide Engine No. JF16ECFGCO5097 on 24.06.2015 from Sri. Gopal Automobiles, Renigunta Road, Tirupati under Hypothecation from opposite parties. The total cost of the vehicle is Rs.64,960/- out of which the complainant paid Rs.22,500/- as down payment and the rest of the amount was financed by the opposite parties one K. Mohammad Basha stood as Guarantor for sanctioning loan to the complainant. The opposite parties collected three empty cheques from the Guarantor drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Renigunta Branch and further guarantor gave undertaking to the opposite parties to withdraw the installment amount through his account in IOB, Renigunta Branch vide Account No.015501000025900. The complainant agreed to pay the loan amount in 12 equal monthly installments at the rate of Rs.4,582/- per month commencing from 24.06.2015 and ending on 21.05.2016. The complainant paid Rs.4,582/- by way of cash in the office of the first opposite party towards first installment and the remaining 11 installments were deposited in Indian Overseas Bank in account No.015501000025900 belonging to the guarantor without any default. The loan was completed as on 21.05.2016. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 for N.O.C after clearing the loan installments and also collected three cheques and original R.C but opposite party No.1 expressed unwillingness to give N.O.C and other documents saying that, still there is balance due from complainant. The opposite party did not furnish any statement of account to the complainant and is harassing her. Thus there is deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties in not issuing N.O.C and delivering the cheques and original R.C. The complainant suffered mental agony for which he is claiming Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. The complainant issued legal notice on 20.05.2017 and the same was acknowledged by opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 requested the complainant that documents were misplaced in their branch and they are searching. Thereafter the complainant issued final notice on 17.10.2018 and the same was acknowledged by the opposite parties and  false reply notice was issued by the opposite parties on 25.10.2018 hence, it is prayed to allow this complaint.

          3. Opposite party No.1 filed written version where as opposite party No.2 remained exparte. At the outset the complaint averments are denied. The complainant approached opposite party and expressed her interest for availing loan for purchase of scooter namely Hero Pleasure. The complainant understanding and accepting the terms and conditions, has executed loan agreement bearing No.ANH03695H on June, 2015 and availed Rs.45,000/- as principle loan amount from opposite party. The said loan amount is repayable with interest charges of Rs.5,402/- in 12 equal installments at the rate of Rs.4,582/- each on 21^st of every English calendar month without any delay. The complainant has given ECS mandates for payment of EMI started on 21.07.2015 and ending on 21.05.2016.

          It is alleged that, the complainant had delayed in payment of loan EMIs against the terms of loan agreement and two ECS mandates issued by the complainant towards payment of the EMIs dt:21.07.2015 and 21.09.2015. The opposite party advised the complainant to pay the EMIs on due dates without any delay but in spite of repeated reminders over phone, the complainant had failed and neglected to pay outstanding installments for the loan account. It is denied that the complainant deposited 11 installments in IOB in the account of Guarantor without any default and loan amount was cleared as on due date as mentioned in the Hypothecation Agreement. But the remaining contents in Para 3 and 4 of the complaint are true. As per terms of the agreement and Mandate Form, the payment of installments is by way of Electronic Clearing Service (ECS) mode, but not through post dated cheques as alleged in the complaint. It is submitted that the complainant is defaulter in repayment of installment and as per statement of opposite party two EMIs were dishonored for want of funds in the account and subsequently the same were paid by cash.

           4. The opposite party further submits that as per terms of loan agreement, the complainant is liable to pay the dishonor ECS mode charges and without clearing the dues the complainant has no right to claim N.O.C. At the time of loan agreement guarantor has deposited three cheques for signature verification and as security for the loan, but not towards installments. The three cheques were deposited by the guarantor but not by the complainant and as such the complainant cannot compel this opposite party for return of said cheques. The guarantor never asked for return of his cheques. This complainant has no legal right to demand for return of three cheques to her as the same were not deposited by her. The original R.C of the vehicle is with the complainant himself and hence the question of giving original R.C to her does not arise. As per statement of account of complainant, the installment amounts payable on 21.07.2015 for dishonored  ECS mode and cash paid on 01.08.2015 and 27.09.2015. Hence as per agreed terms, the complainant is liable to pay Rs.876/- towards ECS charges and Rs.483.60Ps towards additional interest charges. The complainant failed to clear the said amount in spite of repeated demands by the opposite party but on the other hand issued registered legal notice with false allegations. This opposite party gave reply dt: 25.10.2018 by explaining the facts and mentioning about the dues. The opposite party is ready to handover the two cheques of guarantor to the guarantor only, but not to the complainant immediately after clearing the dues. Out of three cheques of Guarantor, one cheque bearing No.270845 is cancelled cheque and was given to the Guarantor’s bank at initial stage for verification of signature for future ECS payments. The last installment fell due on May, 2016. The complaint is clearly barred by limitation since the complaint was filed in the year 2019 but it should have been filed before June, 2018. There is no deficiency of service on part of the opposite party but without clearing dues as per agreement terms, the complainant demanded N.O.C without any right. It is therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint.

          5. The complainant filed chief evidence affidavit as PW-I and marked Ex:A1 to A9. On behalf of the opposite party No.1 one Yenneti Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Y.Raja Rao, working as Branch Manager, IndusInd Bank Ltd., filed chief affidavit as RW-1 and marked Ex:B1 to B5.

          6.  Now the Point for consideration is:-                                                  

               Whether there is deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties? If so, to what extent, the complainant is entitled to seek relief?

           7.Point:-   On perusal of the complaint and written version, it is evident that the documentary evidence produced by both parties are not dispute. It is admitted that the complainant executed loan agreement to avail loan of Rs.45,000/- under Ex:B1. Similarly there is no dispute that the said loan amount is repayable with interest charges of Rs.5,402/- in 12 equal monthly installments at the rate of Rs.4,582/- each on 21^st of every month without any delay or default. It is also not in dispute that complainant has given ECS mandates for payment of EMI commencing from 21.07.2015 ending with 21.05.2016. The loan is meant for purchasing Hero Honda Pleasure scooter.

              Ex:A1 pertains to the R.C of the vehicle. Ex:A2 is Mandate Form sent by the complainant. Ex:A3 and A4 statement of accounts. Ex:A5 is office copy of legal notice issued to the opposite parties by the complainant. Ex:A6 is served postal acknowledgment. Ex:A7 is office copy of legal notice issued to the opposite parties dt: 17.10.2018 and served copy of postal acknowledgment is marked as Ex:A8. Ex:A9 is reply notice issued by the opposite parties dt: 25.10.2018. Ex:B2 is “No Objection Certificate For Lien Endorsement Removal” issued by  Authorized Signatory, opposite party bank. Ex:B3 is true copy of statement of account maintained by opposite party for the account of complainant. Ex:B4 is two photo copies of cheques issued by Guarantor. Ex:B5 is photo copy of Cheque Bounce Memo dt: 13.08.2019.

           8. The dispute is with regard to non issuance of N.O.C after the payment of loan installment by the complainant. But according to the opposite parties two EMIs were dishonoured for want of funds in the account of complainant and the same were paid by cash subsequently. It is the submission of the opposite party counsel that as per agreed terms of loan agreement, the complainant is liable to pay the dishonour (ECS mode) charges and so also additional financial charges for the delay/default committed in payment of the EMIs on time and without clearing the above dues, the complainant cannot claim N.O.C from the opposite party. It is also submission of opposite party counsel that the guarantor K. Mohammad Basha has deposited three blank cheques as security for the loan, but not towards EMIs. The said cheques were deposited by the guarantor but not by the complainant, as such complainant cannot compel the opposite party for return of said cheques and the cheques were not returned to the guarantor as guarantor did not visit the bank. It is further submission of the counsel for opposite party that original R.C of the vehicle is with the complainant herself and hence the question of asking opposite party to deliver original R.C to her does not arise.

          The B-Series documents clearly show that, the ECS dishonour charges of Rs.876/- and additional interest charges for delayed payment of two EMIs Rs.438.60Ps are to be paid by the complainant. During the course of hearing the complainant has filed a memo stating that, she has no objection to handover the two cheques to Guarantor and in so far as the direction with regard to R.C of vehicle is concerned she is not pressing the same as the original R.C is with her.

          9.  The counsel for complainant stated that whatever charges is levied towards dishonor of ECS charges and additional interest charges, the complainant is ready to pay and direction may be given to opposite party to issue N.O.C on payment of the said charges.

            Hence, we are of the view that the complainant can be directed to pay                Rs. 1314.60Ps to the opposite parties and on such payment the opposite party shall issue N.O.C to the complainant as prayed for and in so far as return of three cheques are concerned only two cheques are available with the opposite party the other one bearing No.270845 is cancelled cheque and was given to guarantor’s bank i.e. Indian Overseas Bank for verification of signature for future ECS payments. Hence with regard to the direction to return the cheques to the guarantor, the opposite party is directed to return the two cheques available with them to the guarantor. With regard to the direction regarding handover original R.C to the complainant, the complainant herself filed memo stating that she is not pressing the said direction.

          10. In the result, complaint is partly allowed directing the complainant to pay Rs.1314.60Ps (Rupees one thousand three hundred and fourteen and sixty paise only) to the opposite party if not already paid and on receipt of the same the opposite party is directed to issue N.O.C in favour of the complainant and opposite party further directed to return the two cheques given by the Guarantor to the Guarantor himself. The above said order shall be complied within six (6) in weeks from the date of the order. The rest of the reliefs sought in the complaint are hereby dismissed.

         Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 05^th day of February, 2020.

            Sd/-                                                                                                     Sd/-

   Lady Member                                                                                           President (FAC)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Miss. Sumathi Dandagala (Chief affidavit filed).

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Sri Yenneti Srinivasa Rao (Chief affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION issued by RTA, Tirupati. Date of Registration: 10.07.2015.
	Original copy of IndusInd Bank MANDATE FORM(Electronic Clearing Service (Debit Clearing)). Dt: 25.06.2015.
	True copy of STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT belongs to guarantor (bearing A/c.No.015501000025900) SB-PUB Statement from 01.01.2015 to 19.04.2016 issued by Indian Overseas Bank, Renigunta Branch, Tirupati. Dt: 08.05.2019.
	True copy of STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT belongs to guarantor (bearing A/c.No.015501000025900) SB-PUB Statement for the period from 01.11.2015 to 31.12.2016 issued by Indian Overseas Bank, Renigunta Branch, Tirupati. Dt: 08.05.2019.
	Office copy of the Legal Notice issued to the opposite parties by the complainant. Dt: 20.05.2017.
	Served copy of Postal Acknowledgement.
	Office copy of the Legal Notice issued to the opposite parties. Dt: 17.10.2018.
	Served copy of Postal Acknowledgement.
	Reply Notice issued by the opposite parties. Dt: 25.10.2018.

 

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of LOAN AGREEMENT executed by the Complainant and Co-Borrower with Schedule. Dt: 24.06.2015.
	Photo copy of ”NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE FOR LIEN ENDORSEMENT REMOVAL” issued by Authorized Signatory, IndusInd Bank, Chennai.  NOC Generated on 12.02.2019.
	True copy of STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT maintained by the opposite party for the account of complainant. Generated at Oct 27, 2018.
	Photo copies (2) of Indian Overseas Bank, Renigunta-Cheques of Guarantor.
	Photo copy of CHEQUE BOUNCE MEMO. Dt: 13.08.2019.

 

                                                                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                                                                        President (FAC)

 

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant, 

                   2) The Opposite parties.