State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Satish Kr. Jain vs Citi Bank N.A. on 15 February, 2012
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision : 15.2.2012 First Appeal - 403/2011 (Arising out of the order dated 20.7.2011 passed by the District Forum(East), Saini Enclave, Delhi in complaint case No. 655/2010) Sh. Satish Kr. Jain, 3827, Geeta Gali, Ajit Nagar Chowk, Dharampura, Delhi-31 ....Appellant VS Citi Bank N.A. 124, Jeevan Bharti Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001 A-25, 2nd Floor, MCI Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi ..Respondent CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President Salma Noor, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI
1. The facts of the case are that on 30.5.2005 the complainant had taken a loan of Rs.3,10,000/- from the OP Citi Bank payable in 48 EMIs of each of Rs.9106/-. Since the complainant appellant failed to fulfill his promise, the bank reframed the payment plan; according to which the complainant was to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- in all and in turn the bank promised that post dated EMI cheques, which bank had obtained from him in advance, will not be presented for encashment and no dues certificate would be sent in due course.
A cheque of Rs.80,000/-, which was issued in favour of the bank towards the re-payment of the loan became dishonoured for the reason that bank encashed one of the EMI cheque of Rs.9106/- due to which funds arranged for encashment of cheque of Rs.80,000/- had become insufficient. Subsequently this dispute was settled between the parties and the bank assured the complainant to issue no due certificate with blank security cheques but failed, the complainant, therefore, filed a complainant before the District Consumer Forum with the prayer that OP Bank be directed to issue no due certificate and return blank cheques and pay the compensation of Rs. 1 lakh.
2. The OP filed the written statement and opposed the claim of the complainant.
The bank alleged that it had offered structure plan of Rs.90,000/- for the re-payment of loan in two installments, out of which the first installment of Rs.10,000/- was to be paid on or before 30.9.2007 and the second installment of Rs.80,000/- on or before 20.10.2007.
3. The said plan was time bound and in case of default it was to be cancelled without any further notice to the complainant. The OP denied any deficiency on its part. The District Forum on consideration of evidence of both the parties held the bank guilty and directed the bank to issue No Due Certificate against the loan account of the complainant and a compensation of Rs.5,000/-. Dissatisfied by the amount of compensation, the appellant has come before us in appeal.
4. We have heard Shri Satish Kumar, Appellant in person at admission stage.
5. The only question before us is whether the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum is inadequate? The appellant wants a total compensation of Rs. 1 lakh while he has been awarded Rs.5,000/- as compensation.
6. There is no standard classified yardstick for award of compensation, in each case it depends upon its own facts and circumstances. We have gone through the file of the Trial Forum and find that the Trial Forum has considered the matter thoroughly and fixed particular amount of compensation. We find no good reason to interfere in the discretion of the District Forum in this regard. We, therefore, refuse to accept the request of the appellant for enhancement of compensation.
7. Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
8. Copy of this order be provided to the parties free of cost and a copy of this order be also sent to concerned District Forum and thereafter, file be consigned to record room.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Mrs. Salma Noor) Member Arya