DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 5th day of May, 2023
Filed on: 22/11/2017
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
CC NO. 467/2017
Between
COMPLAINANT
T.K. Ravindranadh, S/o. Kesavan Nair, Krishnasree house, Peruva P.O., Vadukunnapuzha, Vaikom, Kottyam, PIN 686610
(Rep. by Adv. N.P. Sethu, Room No. 736, 7th Floor, KHCAA Golden Jubilee Chamber Complex, Near High Court of Kerala, Cochin 31)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
1. The Manager, Indus-Ind Bank Ltd., Piravom Branch, Room No. 14, St. mary’s Jacobite Church Buildings, Piravom Valiyapalli, Piravom 686 664
2. The Chief Manager, Indus-Ind Bank Ltd., M.G. Road, Kochi – 35
(Rep. by Adv. Sebin Thomas, Lawyers Factory, 3rd Floor, Poothullil Building, Kobara Jn., Kochi 18)
FINAL ORDER
V. Ramachadran, Member:
The complainant is an Ex-bus driver and he has filed this complaint alleging that he had approached the opposite party and availed a vehicle loan forRs.45,400/- for purchasing a two wheeler bike manufactured by Hero by hypothecating the vehicle against the Loan Account No. ECA06767H on 09/11/2015. It is mutually agreed that the amount shall be repaid in 34 equal monthly instalment at the rate of Rs.2,025/- commencing from 09/12/2015. Complainant states that he had given standing instruction to the opposite party bank to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,025/- for the aforesaid 34 months towards the repayment of the said loan amount commencing from 09/12/2015 and ending on 09/04/2019 from the account of the complainant bearing No. 0676053000003291 of South Indian Bank, Piravom branch and the complainant had instructed the bank to deduct the said amount every month very diligently from the complainant’s account through their service branch at Mumbai.
The complainant states that he had handed over three blank cheque bearing No. 44731, 44732, 44733 drawn on South Indian Bank, Piravom Branch to the 1st opposite party as an additional security for repayment of the said sum. In the meanwhile complainant states that he had applied for a housing loan for Rs.20,00,000/- from Federal bank, Peruva Branch by mortgaging 4.50 cents of landed properties. While processing the loan it is informed that the complainant is eligible only for 19 lakhs instead of his application for 20 lakhs. According to the Federal Bank, this ineligibility is due to the decreased CIBIL Score of the complainant in the CIBIL list. It was understood that this was happened due to the non-repayment of a meagre amount of Rs.2,025/- due to the opposite party. The complainant states that it was due to the negligence of the opposite party that the amount was not credited into the loan account of the complainant for which the complainant is not liable. It is due to the negligent attitude from the opposite party that the complainant is enlisted to the defaulter list with CIBIL which has caused the complainant far reaching consequences. The complainant had lost his eligibility to get sanction of entire amount sought for ie. 20 lakhs as housing loan by Federal bank, Peruva.
The complainant alleges that the responsibility to withdraw the EMI of Rs.2,025/- from the account of the complainant is with the opposite party. Due to the inaction from the side of the opposite party the complainant lost a loan facility of Rs.1,00,000/- which is a clear case of deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party and therefore the complainant approaches this Commission for issuing an order to the opposite party to pay compensation and other reliefs.
Upon notice from this Commission, opposite parties appeared and filed a common version in which it is stated that the opposite parties are in no way connected with the housing loan of the complainant. The entry of the petitioner in CIBIL report is purely legal and the complainant had made default in clearing the 2nd EMI dated 21/12/2016 for Rs.2,025/-. The date of 2nd instalment was on 21/01/2016 and there was only Rs.202/- in the account of the complainant on that day and he had deposited Rs.2,600/- only on 17/02/2016 ie. on the next month. The opposite party bank received an intimation vide return memo to the effect that the said amount was not cleared. In CIBIL it is not the quantum of amount but the default is taking into account. In such a circumstance the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant since the opposite party has not caused any damage to the complainant. It is also stated that the opposite party had replied to the lawyer notice sent by the complainant.
Complainant had produced 7 documents and which are marked as Exbt. A1 to A7 opposite parties had produced 4 documents and marked as Exbt. B1 to B4. PW1 and PW2 are cross examined and depositions are recorded.
On going through all the documents produced by either side and on verification of facts stated, the following points are to be analysed.
i. Whether the complainant has proved that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?
ii. If so whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation from the opposite parties and the quantum of compensation entitled for the complainant?
iii. Reliefs and costs?
On a detailed verification of all the documents produced by both sides, it can be seen that the complainant had made a default in the payment of 2nd instalment on 21/01/2016 for insufficient fund in the account of the complainant and the outstanding balance as on 21/01/2016 is Rs.202/-. This is evident from Exbt. A2 produced by the complainant (Exbt. A2-P3). It cannot be attributed that it was due to the deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties that the entry of the complainant in the CIBIL Report had shown a decreased score and the opposite party cannot be put into the responsibility of the same. So also the complainant had not proved with any document in support that he ought to have receive Rs.20 lakhs from the Bank if the opposite parties had not committed any wrong action and therefore complainant had failed to establish his case on merit and therefore the Consumer Complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this 5th day of May, 2023.
Sd/- V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No.467/2017
Order Date: 05/05/2023
