State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Standard Chartered Bank R.S. Puram ... vs Ramasamy Tennampalayam Tirupur on 30 September, 2010
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Tmt.Vasugi Ramanan, M.A., B.L., MEMBER I Thiru.S.Sambandam, B.Sc., MEMBER II F.A.298/2007 [Against order in C.C.190/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore] DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010 M/s.Standard Chartered Bank, | 509, D.B. Road, | Appellant/Opposite Party R.S. Puram, | Coimbatore 641 002, | rep. by its Branch Manager. | Vs. Ramasamy, | Respondent/Complainant 110, Tennampalayam, | Tirupur. | The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant/opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.1,570/- towards wrongful collection of late fee amount from the complainant with 18% interest from 31.01.2005 till the date of realization, to pay Rs.75,000/- towards mental agony and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.21.03.2006 in C.C.190/2005. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 23.09.2010, upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on eitherside, this commission made the following order: Counsel for the Appellant /O.P. : Mr.S.Vasudevan, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : M/s.C.R.Prasanan & A.Palaniappan, Advocate. M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1.
The opposite party is the appellant.
2. The respondent/complainant, who had availed a loan facility from the opposite party bank, has filed a complaint for the recovery of a sum of Rs.1,570/-, with interest thereon as well for a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation, alleging that despite he had paid the entire amount as agreed, the opposite party insisted and collected two months EMI, when the complainant sought for No Due Certificate, which caused mental agony, which should be construed as deficiency in service.
3. The appellant/opposite party having received the notice, not filed Written Version and opposed the claim on merit, thereby, an exparte order, on merit was passed by the District Forum on 21.03.2006 under which , a direction has been issued, not only to pay a sum of Rs.1,570/- with 7.5% interest thereon, but also a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation, towards mental agony, which is impugned by the opposite party, having failed to oppose the case, before the District Forum, as said above.
4. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for either side, perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant urged before us, that for the month of January and February 2005, the complainant has not paid the dues, despite the fact, that the cheques were dishonoured, which amount was collected at the time of issuing No Due Certificate, which cannot be treated as deficiency in service, warranting compensation to the extent of Rs.60,000/-, not properly considered by the District Forum, opposed by the complainant/respondent.
6. The complainant had availed a loan facility, from the opposite party bank to the extent of Rs.2 lakhs, for the purpose of purchasing a Car, for which, in order to secure repayments in monthly installments, he had also issued 35 post dated cheques, as demanded by the opposite party. It seems, though the complainant had paid the entire due, 'No Due Certificate' was not issued by the opposite party, insisting a further sum of Rs.1,570/-, which is labeled as wrong collection, branding the same as deficiency in service, for which, as said above, a claim lodged, before the District Forum, not contested. When this Commission has suggested, to the learned counsel for the parties that the case can be disposed by this Commission itself, instead of remitting the matter on the ground of the opportunity should be given to the opposite party for filing Written Version, then contesting the case, it was readily agreed, in view of the fact, materials are available, to dispose the appeal itself on merit, rendering justice to the parties.
Hence, the appeal is decided on merit, despite the fact, no Written Version has been filed by the appellant/opposite party.
7. The dispute is for the alleged non-payment of two monthly installments namely, January and February 2002, including a debit charge of Rs.200/-, to the complainant's account. In this case, at the time of giving loan, prescribing number of monthly installments, as well the amount, post dated cheques were collected from the complainant, and the purpose of receiving post dated cheques is to collect the EMI, as and when due. If the Bank has not tendered the cheque or sent the cheque, for collection to the drawer Bank, the borrower cannot be faulted and the bank is not entitled to claim the interest, as if, there was a delayed payment.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant made an attempt to say that as per the loan agreement, even for the delayed payment, they are entitled to collect the penal interest, even in the case of receiving post dated cheques.
We are unable to subscribe our view, to the above said admission. If it is to be accepted, than the act of the opposite party bank, should be branded as unfair trade practice. Having given the cheques if the borrower is again compelled or constrained to pay the EMI, then there would be double payment, complicating problems also. Therefore, it is the duty of the bank, to collect the EMI based upon the post dated cheques, sending the same to the correct bank, which was not done, in this case as seen from Ex.A4. The two cheques appear to have been returned for the reasons "Outstation Cheque", "No Arragements". After they were returned, no amount has been collected, then the bank should be in a position to return the dishonoured cheques, which they failed. It is not known, whether the Bank had collected the amount, thereafter or not, since it is the case of the complainant that as per the post dated cheques, entire amounts were collected, including the amount payable in the month of January and February 2002. Even before us also, the cheques were not produced.. From the account copy produced also, we are unable to find out, whether the amounts were collected as per the cheques or not. As indicated above, numbers of times, penal interest were collected. When the complainant insisted for No Due Certificate, the Bank had compelled, the complainant to pay two installments, amounting to Rs.1,570/-, which should be construed, as doubled payment, committing deficiency, for which, the direction issued by the District Forum, cannot be faulted.
9. For the amount collected, since interest has been ordered, the complainant is not entitled to compensation, towards mental agony or otherwise and the costs awarded also appeared to be on the higher side, since it was exparte. Therefore, the compensation ordered by the District Forum should be set aside, and the cost should be reduced.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed, in part, and the order of the District Forum in directing the opposite party, to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation is set aside, reducing the cost before the Lower Forum also at Rs.1,000/-, otherwise confirming the order of the District Forum. No order as to cost in this appeal.
S. SAMBANDAM VASUGI RAMANAN M.THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Ns/mtj/bank/fm