State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Pannalal Bhati S/O Jayanarayan Bhati ... vs M/S Ge Country Wide Consumer Financial ... on 20 March, 2013
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.238 OF 2012
AGAINST C.C.NO.893 OF 2011 DISTRICT FORUM I HYDERABAD
Between:
1. Pannalal Bhati S/o Jayanarayan
Bhati
aged about 61 years, Occ: Business
2. Smt
Kamala Devi Bhati W/o Pannalal
Bhati
aged about 55 years, Occ: Housewife
Both
are R/o 15-7-50/B, Kolshawadi
Begum Bazar, Hyderabad
Appellants/complainants
A
N D
M/s
GE Country Wide Consumer Financial
Services Pvt Ltd., rep. by its Manager
H.No.103 & 105, 1st Floor, Ashok Bhoopal
Chambers, S.P.Road, Secunderabad
Respondent/opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant M/s
Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent M/s N.B.Sudarshan
F.A.No.276 OF 2012
AGAINST C.C.NO.893 OF 2011
Between:
M/s
GE Country Wide Consumer Financial
Services Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Manager
H.No.103 & 105, 1st Floor, Ashok Bhoopal
Chambers, S.P.Road, Secunderabad
Appellant/opposite
party
A
N D
1. Pannalal Bhati S/o Jayanarayan
Bhati
aged about 61 years, Occ: Business
2. Smt
Kamala Devi Bhati W/o Pannalal
Bhati
aged about 55 years, Occ: Housewife
Both are R/o 15-7-50/B, Kolshawadi
Begum Bazar, Hyderabad
Respondents/complainants
Counsel for the Appellant M/s N.B.Sudarshan
Counsel for the Respondent M/s Gopi Rajesh
& Associates
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
& SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER WEDNESDAY THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) ***
1. The opposite party has filed the appeal challenging the order of the District Forum and the complainants have filed appeal for enhancement of the amount of `10,000/- awarded as compensation by the District Forum. Both appeals are directed against the same order.
2. For the sake of convenience and felicity of expression, the parties are referred to as they are referred in the complaint.
3. The facts of the case as seen from the complaint are that the complainant availed loan of `4,00,000/- from the opposite party-finance company in the year 2003 and the opposite party sanctioned the loan on 30.05.2003 repayable in installments from 30.08.2003 till 01.06.2011. The complainants mortgaged their title deed document bearing number 878/1998 for repayment of the loan amount. The complainants paid the entire loan amount by 02.06.2011. The collection agents of the opposite party demanded over phone and visited the complainants for payment of extra amount from them. The opposite party-finance company has not released the mortgaged document. The complainants got issued notice on 1.08.2011 requesting the opposite party to release the document and pay compensation of `2,00,000/-.
4. The opposite party was proceeded exparte.
5. The first complainant filed his affidavit and the documents, ExA1 to A7.
6. The District Forum allowed the complaint on the premise that the complainants had proved that they paid the entire loan installments and the opposite party failed to release the title deed to the complainants which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parry-finance company.
7. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the complainants have filed appeal contending that they filed extract of bank statement to show that they paid entire loan amount through cheques encashed by the opposite party for the last time on 2.06.20011. It is contended that the complainants had got issued notice on 1.08.2011 and the opposite party instead of issuing reply got issued notice dated 30.08.2011 demanding the complainants to pay an amount of Rs.19,045/- and that the District Forum having found deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not releasing the documents, awarded inadequate compensation.
8. The learned counsel for the complainants has relied upon the decisions of the Honble National Commission in N.C.H.D.F.C. vs S.Sundararajan:
IV 2008 CPJ 94 in support of his contention that the inordinate delay in returning title deed by the Bank amounts to deficiency in service.
9. The opposite party has filed appeal contending that the complainants failed to discharge total loan amount and they are due nine EMIs of `84,645/- and penal charges of `6,923/- total amount of `91,568/-. It is contended that the loan account cannot be closed unless the dues are cleared by the complainants and no-objection along with title deed is handed over to them. It is contended that the complainants filed the complaint apprehending filing of suit for recovery of outstanding dues by the opposite party and the District Forum failed to consider reply notice,ExA7 which contains specific mention of total dues from the complainants.
10. The points for consideration are:
i) Whether the complainants paid outstanding dues to the opposite party-finance company?
ii) Whether the opposite party rendered deficient service by retaining the title deed of the complainants?
iii) To what relief?
11. POINT NO.1: The complainants availing loan of `4,00,000/- from the opposite party on 30.05.2003 and the opposite party releasing the loan amount through loan account bearing number HHYH0000004 to the complainants is not disputed. The complainants contend that they had paid entire loan amount through 60 cheques submitted to the opposite party at the time of sanctioning the loan.
12. The learned counsel for the complainants contended that the opposite party due to its mistake could not encash a cheque and on being requested, the complainants paid an amount of Rs.9,405/- and thereafter the complainants paid the entire loan amount through the cheques already issued in favour of the opposite party.
13. The opposite party through notice dated 8.08.2011 demanded the complainants to pay `19,045/- which included EMI, penal charges and cheque bounce charges. Prior to the notice dated 8.08.2011, the complainants got issued notice on 01.08.2011 calling upon the opposite party to release the title deed of the complainants and for payment of compensation of `2,00,000/-
to the complainants and after receiving notice from the opposite party the complainants got issued rejoinder making it clear to the opposite party that they had paid the entire over dues and the opposite party has to pay compensation to the complainants.
14. The extract of statement of account was issued on 7,06.2011 and the opposite party issued demand notice on 8.08.2011.In the demand notice the complainants are attributed with negligence in making payment of EMIs. The cheques issued by the complainants and how many of the cheques are encashed and how many of them are returned unpaid is not mentioned by the opposite party. The extract of the bank statement of the complainants is not disputed by the opposite party. As there is dispute in regard to the amount due, we deem it fit to remit the matter to the District Forum.
15. The matter need be remitted back to the District Forum giving opportunity to the appellant to defend the claim by filing written version and adducing evidence if any., However, for the latches on the part of the appellant-bank the respondent should not suffer and we are inclined to direct the appellant to pay costs of `3,000/-
and the District Forum would receive the written version subject to payment of `3,000/- to be made by the appellant-bank to the respondent. The District Forum shall not be carried away by the observations made by this Commission. It has to come to the conclusion independently, uninfluenced by any observations made by us in the order.
16. In the result the appeal F.A.No.276 of 2012 is allowed setting aside the order passed by the District Forum. The matter is remitted back to the District Forum. The District Forum is directed to dispose of the matter as per law after giving opportunity to both sides to lead evidence. F.A.No.238 of 2012 filed by the complainant is dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
MEMBER Sd/-
MEMBER Dt.20.03.2013 కెఎంకె*