By Smt. Bindu. R,  President:-

          This  complaint is filed by  Reji N.P, Mangalath House,  Madakkara, Nenmeni Post, Sulthan Bathery Taluk   against (1)  The Branch Manager, State Bank of India,  Town Branch,  Erstwhile   State  Bank of Tranvancore,  Sulthan Bathery Branch,  Main Road,  Sulthan  Bathery (P.O),  Sulthan Bathery-673 592 (2)  The Branch Manager,  HDFC Bank,  Sulthan Bathery (P.O),  Sulthan Bathery- 673 592 alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties.

          2. Complainant states that he is  an employee of KSEB Ltd.,  and his main accounts are with  1^st Opposite Party including the salary account.  The Complainant availed  a vehicle loan from 2^nd  Opposite Party and 1^st  Opposite Party was entrusted to pay  the loan instalments by ECS and 1^st  Opposite Party  was regularly remitting the amount.  During  October and November 2017,  The 1^st  Opposite Party had not disbursed the amount as requested by 2^nd  Opposite Party though  there was sufficient  amount in the account of the Complainant.  Hence the agent of 2^nd  Opposite Party came  to the office of the Complainant and told the incident in front  of  others thereby the Complainant was insulted and hence the Complainant paid the amount directly to the  2^nd  Opposite Party and  2^nd  Opposite Party also included  the penal interest for the said amount.  It is stated by the Complainant that,  later when the Complainant checked  the account  statement of  1^st  Opposite  Party,  it was revealed that 1^st  Opposite Party had not disbursed the loan  account on request of 2^nd  Opposite Party even though there was  sufficient amount in the account as balance.  When the same was put to the notice of  1^st  Opposite Party,  it is  informed  that the same was due to the merging procedure of SBT to SBI and according to  1^st  Opposite Party, they cannot  do anything  in this case.  Hence a written intimation was made on 20.11.2017 but neither reply  received nor steps  taken to cure the defect.  The Complainant states that the non payment of instalments when  there was sufficient  amount in the account of the  Complainant amounts to  deficiency of  service and unfair trade practice  from the side of  Opposite Parties and hence the complaint for getting  compensation and other reliefs.

          3. Upon notice the Opposite Parties entered  into appearance and filed their separate versions.

          4. According to the 1^st  Opposite Party there is no default  in service in their part and the  complaint is false,  frivolous,  vexatious  and abuse  of process of the Commission.  The complaint is not maintainable and is filed suppressing the material facts.  It is admitted by  1^st  Opposite Party that the Complainant is their customer with  account No.20043711493 and  received a mandate to operate his account through ECS (Electronic Clearing System) with HDFC vide user ID No.0004009033 from 5/04/2016 till 10.03.2016.  But  the 2^nd  Opposite Party had not demanded the claim for the period  October 2017 and November 2017.  It is contented by the  1^st  Opposite Party that the ECS is managed through the  Veb National Clearing House, a Government Agency as per mandate and 1^st  Opposite Party has no role in it.  The collection of unnecessary charges by 1^st  Opposite Party is denied.  It is stated in the version  that if the  Complainant  is not maintaining sufficient balance in his account towards any repayment as per the mandate of ECS,  if  dishonoring is happened  that is beyond the  control of  1^st  Opposite Party and hence  1^st  Opposite Party is  an unnecessary party and no cause of action is there against  1^st  Opposite Party.  Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs of  1^st  Opposite Party. 

          5. The 2^nd  Opposite Party in their version stated that Complainant approached the Commission without disclosing  the  real facts and hence the complaint is not maintainable.  The 2^nd  Opposite Party admitted  that the Complainant  availed two wheeler loan for Rs.66,521/-  bearing  loan account No.37776408 from  2^nd  Opposite Party and Rs.2,555/-  is payable towards EMI commencing from 05.02.2016  to 05.01.2019. For  repayment of loan the Complainant had opted ECS mode.  The Statement in the Complainant that the Complainant had maintained  sufficient balance in his account towards repayment of loan and the statement  regarding  direct payment by cash to 2^nd  Opposite Party are denied by them.  The Complainant had submitted ECS mandate form duly signed by him for  the purpose of transferring the amount from his account towards his monthly EMIs  and the said mandate form were submitted to  1^st Opposite Party for ECS transfer.  The same got dishonoured  by 1^st  Opposite Party with a  reason “Refer  to Drawer”  and the same was duly intimated to the Complainant.  Hence the Complainant is liable to pay ECS bounce charges  and overdue charges to 2^nd  Opposite Party.  But  upon request of the Complainant and towards good will gesture,   2^nd  Opposite Party had waived off overdue and cheque bounce charges to the Complainant which is reflected in the statement of account. 2^nd  Opposite Party contented that there is no latches or deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd  Opposite Party in  presenting  ECS request to the 1^st  Opposite party and hence  2^nd  Opposite Party is not liable for the mental agony and financial loss alleged to have been suffered  by the Complainant.   There is no  deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the  side of  2^nd  Opposite Party and hence  prayed for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory costs to  2^nd  Opposite Party.

          6. Evidence in this case consists  of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3 are marked from the side of the Complainant. No evidence adduced from the side of Opposite Parties.

          7. Following are the questions to be analysed in the case  by the Commission.

1. Whether the Complainant has sustained  any deficiency  of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Parties?
2. If so  the  quantum of  compensation  and other reliefs  for which the Complainant is eligible to get?

8. Heard  the counsels and perused  the records in detail.  The specific case of the Complainant  is that the 1^st  Opposite Party had not disbursed the amount due, towards the loan payable to 2^nd  Opposite Party for which  ECS mandate is given by the Complainant,  though there is sufficient amount  in the account as per the ECS submitted by the Complainant.  The further steps taken by  2^nd  Opposite Party caused mental agony to the Complainant which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of   Opposite Parties.

9. The Complainant had produced Ext.A1,  copy of statement of account regarding  the account No.67362900092 for the period  02.05.2017 to 22.12.2017.  Ext.A2 is the copy of repayment receipts issued by 2^nd  Opposite Party and Ext.A3 is the copy of letter given by the Complainant  to 1^st  Opposite Party ( In this case the Complainant was  examined  on 19.09.2023 and Ext.A1 to A4 were marked.  But subsequently PW1 was further examined and submitted  that only Ext.A1 to A3 are there  and the mistake creptin is to be corrected).

10. During  cross examination of  1^st Opposite Party the Complainant deposed that  “Rm³ HDFC  _m¦n \n¶pw  sImSp¯ Electronic Clearing  System  hgn-bn SBI  th­  ]Ww A¡u-­n  CÃm-¯-Xn-\m aS§n F¶p-f-f-XmWv  tIkv.  sN¡v  Issue sN¿pw {]Im-c-ap-ff XpI A¡u-­n  D­m-tI-­Xv Fsâ IS-a-bm-sW¶v a\-Ên-em-¡n-bn-«p-­v.    Fsâ  HDFC  loan account  te¡v  SBI  A¡u-­n \n¶pw Electronic Clearing  System  hgn amdm-\p-ff mandate HDFC  _m¦n\v Fgp-Xn-sIm-Sp-¯n-«p-­v.  2017 October November  amk-§-fnse sN¡p-I-fmWv  aS-§n-b-Xv. Rm³ \ÂInb mandate sâ tIm¸n tImS-Xn-bn  lmP-cm-¡m-Xn-cn-¡m³  {]tX-y-In¨v Imc-W-an-Ã.  2017 October \hw-_À amk-§-fn \ÂIn aS-§nb sN¡p-I-fpsS IrX-y-amb XpI HmÀ½-bn-Ã.  SBI account  th­{X ]Ww CÃm-¯-Xn-\m-emWv sN¡v  aS-§n-b-sX¶v ]d-ªm icn-bm-Wv”.   PW1 further deposed that “HDFC  Â  \n¶v Rm³ sImSp¯   mandate  Dw electronic  cheque  leaf  Dw t\m¡n-bmse F{X  XpI-bv¡mWv c­mw FXr-I£n collection  \v sImSp-¯-sX¶v ]d-bm³  Ignbq c­mw FXr I£n sImSp¯ sN¡v  leaf  F{X XpI-bv¡mWv sImSp-¯-sX¶v ImWn-¡p¶ tcJ tImS-Xn-bn lmP-cm-¡n-bn-«n-Ô.    PW1 further deposed that  “Cu ]cm-Xn-¡m-[m-c-am-bXv Rm³ HDFC    bpsS hypothecation aptJ\ hml\w hm§n-b-XmWv AXv  Rm\pw  second OP bpam-bp-ff  Hcp  Contract BWv.  Rm³  FSp¯  loan  H¶pw FXnÀ I£n I£n-b-Ã.  AXp-sIm­v  Xs¶ H¶mw FXr I£n¡v tIkv kw_-Ôn¨v kzm-`m-hn-I-ambpw IrX-y-amb Adnhp-­m-hp-I-bn-Ã.  Rm³  SBI  maintain sNbvX account  Bh-i-y-amb XpI \nt£-]n-¡p-¶Xv Fsâ  ISa Bbn-cp-s¶¶v ]d-ªm icn-bm-Wv”.

11. During Cross examination by  2^nd  Opposite Party,  Complainant deposed that “ Fsâ account  \n¶pw CuSm-¡nb ]ng XpI Fsâ account te¡v  credit sNbvXp   -X-¶n-«p-s­¶v ]d-ªm³  Rm³ {i²n-¨n-«n-Ô. 

12. The Commission considered the entire aspects in detail and the skelton of the complaint is build up  on the fact that the ECS mandate given by  the Complainant       to the 1^st  Opposite Party had not been honoured and thereby resulted in the non payment of loan account  of the Complainant due towards  the 2^nd  Opposite Party and aggrieved  by that, the present complaint is filed.  Since the Complainant himself has deposed in  box during cross examination of  1^st  Opposite Party that the dishonouring  of the demand  of  payment was due  to insufficient fund in the account.   The instrument as stated above  has not been produced from either  side before the Commission.

Hence the Commission  finds that there is no merit in the case and hence point No.1 is found against the Complainant.  Since  point No.1 is found  against,   point No.2 is not considered by the Commission and there fore Consumer Case  is dismissed,  without costs.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 15^th   day of March 2024.

          Date of filing:11.01.2018.

                                                                             PRESIDENT    :  Sd/-                                 

MEMBER        :    Sd/- 

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1.          Reji. N.P.                        Complainant.                            

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits  for the Complainant:

A1.          Copy of Statement of Account.             

A2.          Copy of Repayment Receipt (Customer Copy).         dt: 17.11.2017.

A3.           Letter.                                                            dt:20.11.2017.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

                                                                                                PRESIDENT:   Sd/-

                                                                                               MEMBER    :   Sd/-