State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Manager,Customer Service,City ... vs Dr.A.P.Chidambaram No.11, 11Th Cross, ... on 21 March, 2011
BEFORE THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI (BENCH II) Present: Thiru.A.K.Annamalai, M.A., M.L., M.Phil., Presiding Member Judicial Tmt.Vasugi Ramanan, M.A., B.L., Member F.A.No.467/2008 [Against order in COP.No.195/2006 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore) MONDAY, THE 21rd DAY OF MARCH 2011. 1. The Manager, Customer Service, City Bank N.A., Chennai-2 2. City Bank N.A., Global Consumer Bank, Chennai 600 002. .. Appellants/opposite parties 1&2 Vs. 1.Dr.A.P.Chidambaram S/o.A.N.Perianna Gounder, Anestheologist, No.11, 11th Cross, Thirumagal Nagar, Peelamedu Pudur, Coimbatore-4. .. 1st Respondent/complainant 2. Nagarajan Associates, Coimbatore 641 009. .. 2nd Respondent/3rdopposite party 3. Shelters, Coimbatore 641 037. .. 3rd Respondent/4thopposite party The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Coimbatore, alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to send a summon to the opposite parties and take into consideration all the documents filed along with the complainant and the opposite parties under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act and punish the opposite parties, to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the illegal threat. The District Forum, allowed the complaint against the opposite parties 1, 2 and 4. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties 1&2 praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Erode, dated 2.5.2007 in COP. No.195/2006. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 07.03.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- Counsel for the Appellants/opposite parties 1&2 : Mr.V.V.Giridhar, Advocate. Counsel for the 1st Respondent/complainant : Mr.Serdar Iqbal Sheriff, Advocate. Respondents 2 and 3 : No relief sought against R2&R3. ORDER
A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL
1. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are the appellants.
2. The complainant/1st respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum, seeking the relief to send a summon to the opposite parties and take into consideration all the documents filed along with the complainant and the opposite parties under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act and punish the opposite parties, to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the illegal threat.
3. The complainant case in brief is, the complainant is a practicing Doctor.
Prior of 26.5.99 the complainant applied for loan for Rs.4,00,000/- and cleared Rs.3,70,000/-. Opposite parties 1 and 2 agreed to grant Rs.7,00,000/- after adjusting pending amount and accordingly a sum of Rs.6,24,504/- was granted on 26.5.99 to be repaid at Rs.20,930/- EMI for 48 months from 1st June 1989 and after paying 15 instalments he has preclosed the loan, by paying Rs.5,11,100/- on 28.8.2000 by way of demand draft and request was made to the concerned opposite parties 1 and 2 to stop payment for the 3 cheques dated 1.9.2000, 1.10.2000 and 1.4.2003 and in spite of that 3rd and 4th opposite parties presented the cheques for collection which were not honoured. On 30.5.2006 on the basis of telephone call from one Ananthakumar of Chennai, the Lawyer of the 1st and opposite parties informed an alleged balance of Rs.70,000/- to be paid before 5.00 pm on 30.5.2006 failing which arrest warrant will be executed and on the basis of the same when the complainant contacted City Bank, Chennai and from there to Coimbatore in turn as directed by the officers and one Senthilkumar was deputed for collection of Rs.70,000/- and the same was paid for which a receipt was issued for Rs.38,657/- and a letter dated 12.6.06 from the 2nd opposite party intimated that the account was closed. After keeping silent for more than 6 years from 28.2.2000, the 1st opposite party in a sudden manner with threatening instructions compelled to the complainant to pay Rs.70,000/- and thereby he issued a legal notice on 12.7.2006 and no response was made for the same.
4. Before the District Forum, the opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 were called absent and set exparte and the 3rd opposite party was exonerated by way of memo dated 20.3.2003.
5. In those circumstances, the District Forum on perusal of the complaint and the proof affidavit of complainant and the documents filed passed an order by allowing the complaint by directing the opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 to return the amount of Rs.70,000/- collected by force with interest at 12% and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- towards cost.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the appellants/ opposite parties 1 and 2 have come forward with this appeal and in the grounds of appeal stating the details of complaint and the District Forum failed to appreciate the complaint and since the appellants stood exparte, the execution proceedings has been launched and there is a apprehension of arrest warrant being issued against the Manager of the appellant bank and alleged there was no opportunities given before the District Forum to depend the case and the question of limitation also to be considered in view of the closure of the loan on 28.8.2000 itself, and thereby pray for setting aside the order of the District forum.
7. While considering appellant and complainants contentions before this Commission in this appeal, it is an admitted fact that the appellants being opposite parties 1 and 2 remained exparte and in those circumstances the order was passed on merits by the District Forum, on the basis of the materials placed by the complainant. As represented by the appellate side the alleged loan was closed on 28.2.2000 and the complainant was forced to pay Rs.70,000/- on 30.5.2006 after on the basis of threatening phone call from the 1st opposite party office and also on clarification by the complainant through the phone from opposite parties 1 and 2 one Senthilkumar has collected the money for Rs.70,000/- from the complainant and for which a receipt for Rs.38,657/- only was issued as alleged by the complainant and in those circumstances the genuineness of the demand or otherwise by the opposite parties are all could be ascertained only by way of proper enquiry and through documents from the opposite parties. To make it possible for the same done an opportunity to the opposite parties to put forth their case to be given and in the circumstances this Commission, feels the matter is required for remand for the same and accordingly this Commission decides to remand the matter for proper appreciation of evidence from bothsides. But since the appellants/ opposite parties 1 and 2 remained absent before the District Forum in spite of the notices served on them for the purpose of remand, we feel that the opposite parties must suffer some cost for the same and thereby this Commission allows the appeal with condition by directing as follows :-
a) The order of the District Forum in COP 195/2006 dated 2.5.07 is hereby set aside.
b) The case is remanded back to the District Forum for proper appreciation of evidence from bothsides and for the orders on merits.
c) Both parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 18.4.2011 and the same day the opposite parties shall file their written version and proof affidavit and to proceed with the case.
d) The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as cost to the complainant on or before 31.3.2011 failing which the appeal will stand dismissed automatically.
VASUGI RAMANAN A.K.ANNAMALAI, MEMBER PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL INDEX : YES / NO sg/B-II/aka//HDFC Bank