Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu,  President.

1.       The  complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that the complainant  had availed a Auto Loan for his car make Hyundai I 20 having loan account No.26690291 from the Opposite Party in the year 2013 for a sum of Rs.5,66,438/- to be repaid in EMI of Rs.12,386/- and the due date of payment of instalment was 5^th of every month.  The complainant further alleged that due to the financial crises of the Government of Punjab, the office  of DGP, Punjab issued directions vide letter No. 5486-5587 dated 19.5.2014 that the amount of EMI from the account of the Punjab Police employees to be deducted upto 12^th of every month as sometimes, the salary of the employees is credited in their account late due to financial crises of the Punjab Government.  Further alleges that although the due date of the EMI of the complainant was 5th of every month, but due to  the instructions issued by DGP, Punjab the cheque was not to be presented before 12^th of every month and the said facility was came into force w.e.f. 15.07.2014 meaning  thereby the cheque if presented before 12^th of month, then the borrower will not be liable to pay any cheque bouncing etc. charges as the salary of the complainant directly came in his account maintained in the Opposite Party bank.  Further alleged  that  on seeing  the trace record of the complainant, the Opposite Party bank further advanced the loan of Rs.3,53,000/- to the complainant against the above said car and the EMI of the said loan as made Rs.7942/- the due date of the payment of EMI was fixed as 5^th of every month which was to be started from 05.11.2015, but the complainant found that inspite of the instructions issued by the office of  DGP, Punjab dated 19.05.2014, the Opposite Party presented the number of cheques before 12^th of month and imposed the penalty upon the complainant on account of insufficient funds. Initially, the Opposite Party bank intentionally presented the cheques issued by the complainant as security and got it bounced and thereafter, the Opposite Party debited the complainant with bouncing charges number of times. When the complainant went to the Opposite Party bank and got the statement of his account, he astonished to see the illegal deductions made by the Opposite Party bank from his account and on enquiry, the Opposite Party could not satisfy the complainant. Due to the above said illegal acts of the Opposite Party, the complainant has suffered a lot  as his hard earned money has been illegally deducted by the Opposite Party without any reason.  As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       To direct the Opposite Party bank to refund the amount which has been illegally deducted by the Opposite Party on account of cheque bouncing charges, penalty etc. 

b)      To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.One lakh on account mental agony and harassment due to illegal acts of the Opposite Party and for grant of Rs.22,000/- on account of litigation expenses.   

2.       On notice, Opposite Party- bank appeared through counsel and contested the complaint  by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that  the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint;  that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous; that the complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Commission with clean hands as he has willfully concealed the material facts while filing the instant complaint which ipso facto disentitles the complainant to seek any relief against the Opposite Party. Moreover, the lengthy examination-in-chief and cross examination of the parties/ witnesses are required in the complaint which is not possible in the summary procedure under the Consumer Protection Act and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the Civil Court. The true facts are that on 26.12.2013 the complainant entered into an agreement of loan with the Opposite Party and took a loan of Rs.5,66,438/- which was payable in 5 years with equal monthly installments of Rs.12,386/- with 11.25% rate of interest subject to the terms and conditions of the Opposite Party as well as the instructions of the Reserve Bank of India. Further alleges that monthly installment was to be realized on 5^th of every month through post dated cheques issued by the complainant to the Opposite Party at the time of agreement dated 26.12.2013. As per the terms and conditions the agreement, an amount of Rs.450/- was chargeable per return of the cheque in case of bounce of cheque and the bank has charged the cheque bouncing charges as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. On merits, it is averred that  the Opposite Party bank is not concerned or bound by the instructions of DGP Punjab and the complainant should have arrange  for  the payment of the post  dated cheques issued by him to repay the loan availed by him vide agreement and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

3.       In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of legal notice  Ex.C2, copy of  postal receipt Ex.C3, copy of statement Ex.C4 to Ex.C6, copy of acknowledgement Ex.C7, copy of statement Ex.C8, copy of letter  issued by DGP Punjab dated 19.05.2014 Ex.C9 and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party bank also tendered into evidence agreement for auto loan Ex.OP1, copy of statement Ex.OP2, affidavit of Damanpreet Singh, Branch Head Ex.OP3  and closed the evidence.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, perused the written arguments filed by the Complainant and also gone through the documents placed on record.

6.       Ld.counsel for the Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that the complainant  had availed a Auto Loan for his car make Hyundai I20 having loan account No.26690291 from the Opposite Party in the year 2013 for a sum of Rs.5,66,438/- to be repaid in EMI of Rs.12,386/- and the due date of payment of instalment was 5^th of every month.  Further contended that  due to the financial crises of the Government of Punjab, the office  of DGP, Punjab issued directions vide letter No. 5486-5587 dated 19.5.2014 that the amount of EMI from the account of the Punjab Police employees to be deducted upto 12^th of every month as sometimes, the salary of the employees is credited in their account late due to financial crises of the Punjab Government.  Further alleges that although the due date of the EMI of the complainant was 5th of every month, but due to  the instructions issued by DGP, Punjab the cheque was not to be presented before 12^th of every month and the said facility was came into force w.e.f. 15.07.2014 meaning  thereby the cheque if presented before 12^th of month, then the borrower will not be liable to pay any cheque bouncing etc. charges as the salary of the complainant directly came in his account maintained in the Opposite Party bank.  Further contended that  on seeing  the trace record of the complainant, the Opposite Party bank further advanced the loan of Rs.3,53,000/- to the complainant against the above said car and the EMI of the said loan as made Rs.7942/- the due date of the payment of EMI was fixed as 5^th of every month which was to be started from 05.11.2015, but the complainant found that inspite of the instructions issued by the office of  DGP, Punjab dated 19.05.2014, the Opposite Party presented the number of cheques before 12^th of month and imposed the penalty upon the complainant on account of insufficient funds. Initially, the Opposite Party bank intentionally presented the cheques issued by the complainant as security and got it bounced and thereafter, the Opposite Party debited the complainant with bouncing charges number of times. When the complainant went to the Opposite Party bank and got the statement of his account, the complainant astonished to see the illegal deductions made by the Opposite Party bank from his account and on enquiry, the Opposite Party could not satisfy the complainant. Due to the above said illegal acts of the Opposite Party, the complainant has suffered a lot  as his hard earned money has been illegally deducted by the Opposite Party without any reason and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that  on 26.12.2013 the complainant entered into an agreement of loan with the Opposite Party and took a loan of Rs.5,66,438/- which was payable in 5 years with equal monthly installments of Rs.12,386/- with 11.25% rate of interest subject to the terms and conditions of the Opposite Party as well as the instructions of the Reserve Bank of India. Further alleges that monthly installment was to be realized on 5^th of every month through post dated cheques issued by the complainant to the Opposite Party at the time of agreement dated 26.12.2013. As per the terms and conditions the agreement, an amount of Rs.450/- was chargeable per return of the cheque in case of bounce of cheque and the bank has charged the cheque bouncing charges as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. It was further contended that  the Opposite Party bank is not concerned or bound by the instructions of DGP Punjab and the complainant should have arrange  for  the payment of the post  dated cheques issued by him to repay the loan availed by him vide agreement and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

8.       It is not the denial of the case of the parties that the complainant has availed the  complainant has availed the car loan   of Rs.5,66,438/-  from the Opposite Party bank on 26.12.2013 while executing the agreement of loan with the Opposite Party and the loan  was payable in 5 years with equal monthly installments of Rs.12,386/- with 11.25% rate of interest subject to the terms and conditions of the Opposite Party as well as the instructions of the Reserve Bank of India. It is also not disputed that the that monthly installment was to be realized on 5^th of every month through post dated cheques issued by the complainant to the Opposite Party at the time of agreement dated 26.12.2013. The terms and conditions of said agreement which is produced by the Opposite Party on record as Ex.OP1 has nowhere denied by the complainant and it is duly signed by Iqbal Singh, complainant in English language after understanding its terms and conditions. As per the terms of section 1.15 under the Head ‘Late Payment Charges’, it has clearly been mentioned that payment delayed beyond the due date of the installments are applicable. We find force in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Agarwal Steel, 2009(4) CCC598 (SC), wherein it was observed that the person who signed the documents, there is presumption that he understood the document and only then he signed  it specifically he is an educated person unless contrary is proved that it was obtained under some threat, pressure or coercion and in the instant case, the complainant has nowhere denied the factum of the agreement between the complainant and Opposite Party Bank. Moreover, the only contention of the complainant is that due to late receiving of his salary, he could not pay the installments on or before 5^th day of every month as agreed vide agreement Ex.OP1 and in this regard, he has supported the letter of DGP, Punjab issued vide directions/ letter No. 5486-5587 dated 19.5.2014 to the effect that  the amount of EMI from the account of the Punjab Police employees is to be deducted upto 12^th of every month, but that  the Opposite Party bank is not concerned or bound by the instructions of DGP Punjab and the complainant should have arrange  for  the payment of the post  dated cheques issued by him to repay the loan availed by him vide agreement and neither there is any such terms and conditions in the agreement executed between the parties. Neither there is any document  with regard to any settlement between DGP, Punjab and Opposite Party bank in this regard to give any such relaxation to the account holders of the employees of Punjab Police and as such, the alleged letter of DGP, Punjab is not binding upon the rights of the Opposite Party bank.  Moreover, for the sake of arguments, if it is admitted  that the DGP, Punjab has issued such letter giving relaxation to their employees, but bare perusal of said letter shows that said letter is applicable w.e.f. 15.07.2014 and the maximum bouncing charges/ penalty charges  were levied by the Opposite Party bank prior to that period and the complainant can not be given the benefit of this letter if any, issued by the DGP, Punjab. 

9.       In view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission finds no merit in the complaint and the same stands dismissed.  Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

10.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not  appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.