State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Citibank Na, Plot C-61, Bandra Kurla ... vs . Dr.C.Arumugam, No.2, Club House Road, ... on 20 March, 2012
THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI. BENCH - II Present: Thiru. J.Jayaram, M.A., M.L., Presiding Judicial Member Tmt. Vasugi Ramanan, M.A., B.L., Member F.A.No.456/2010 [Against order in C.C.No.76/2003 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (South)] TUESDAY, THE 20th DAY OF MARCH 2012. 1. Citibank NA, Plot C-61, Bandra Kurla Complex, G.Block, Bandra East, Mumbai. Rep. by CEO Mr.Nanoo Panmani. 2. Citibank NA, No.2, Club House Road, Chennai 600 002. Rep. by Manager. .. Appellants/Opposite parties 1&2 /Vs/ 1. Dr.C.Arumugam, No.2, Club House Road, Chennai 600 002. Rep. by Manager. .. 1st Respondent/Complainant 2. M/s.Shelters, (Citibank Associate), No.117, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. Rep. by its Manager. .. 2nd Respondent/3rd opposite party The 1stRespondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund a sum of Rs.25,871/- and to waive all the interest on the loan account and payment of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and return of 3 cheques issued by the complainant and costs of the complaint. The District Forum allowed the complaint against the opposite parties 1 and 2 and dismissed as against the 3rd opposite party. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.15,772/- to the complainant jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as costs of the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dated 26.10.2009 in C.C.No.76/2003. The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 14.3.2012, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- Counsel for Appellants/Opposite parties 1 & 2 : M/s.Rank Associates, Advocate. Counsel for 1st Respondent/ Complainant : M/s.V.Venkatesan, Advocate. Counsel for 2nd Respondent/3rd Opposite party : Given up. ORDER
TMT.VASUGI RAMANAN, MEMBER :
1. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are the appellants.
2. Complainant/1st Respondent filed a consumer complaint against the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund a sum of Rs.25,871/- and to waive all the interest on the loan account and payment of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and return of 3 cheques issued by the complainant and costs of the complaint.
3. The case of the complainant is as follows :-The complainant availed a personal loan from 2nd opposite party for Rs.3,50,000/- on 27.1.2001.
The complainant was paying the monthly instalment of Rs.10,049/- regularly. In August 2002 through 3rd opposite party the 1st and 2nd opposite parties offered a top-up facility whereby the complainant was given a fresh loan. On 31.8.2002, the complainant having paid Rs.1,31,287/- towards the loan account, deposited 3 crossed post dated cheques drawn on Punjab National Bank. The complainant submitted that the pre-sanctioned loan amount was Rs.1,88,000/- and the balance amount of previous loan Rs.1,72,228/- was to be adjusted and the opposite party owed Rs.15,772/- to the complainant as a fresh loan at the rate of 15.75% interest.
4. The complainant alleged that the opposite party informed him that the amount of Rs.10,099/- paid by him towards August instalment would be refunded along with the fresh loan. Since the opposite parties did not pay the said amount the complainant caused a legal notice on 7.11.2002 to which there was no reply from the opposite parties.
The complainant then filed the above consumer dispute.
5. The case of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:- The 2nd opposite party alleged that on 6.9.2002, the complainant requested to close the old loan account. The opposite party bank offered top up facility of closing the existing loan and to sanction a fresh loan. The 2nd opposite party averred after deducting insurance premium and transaction fees, the complainant was offered Rs.5463/-, by way of a demand draft sent through. The 3rd opposite partys case is as follows :- They averred that they are only forwarding agents to the bank and that there is no specific allegation against them and prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them.
6. The District Forum allowed the complaint holding the 1st and 2nd opposite party liable to pay jointly, and severally Rs.15,772/- and Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs and dismissed the complaint against the 3rd opposite party. The learned counsel for appellant submitted that an amount of Rs.4,637.05 was offered to the complainant by way of demand draft on 13.09.2002, but was not received by him who insisted on reversal of insurance premium and transaction fees.
7. The learned counsel for appellant submitted that after deducting loan sanction amount and insurance premium the said amount of Rs.4673/- was offered. As a gesture of goodwill the appellant sent a demand draft for Rs.5463/-, dated 30.10.2002, the insurance premium amount to the complaint but the cover containing both the demand drafts was returned with an endorsement partly shifted.
8. The appellant submitted that the complainant/respondent is not entitled for refund of Rs.10,099/-. The EMI for the month of August 2002. The learned counsel for Respondent/complainant argued that he is entitled for refunding Rs.25,871/-, which includes Rs.10,099/- August EMI and prayed to confirm the order of the District Forum. After going through rival contentions, and the District Forums order we make the following observations.
9. The opposite parties have not produced any proof, that they paid insurance premium as claimed by them. Similarly the returned cover is not a sufficient evidence to prove that the opposite parties/appellant had taken steps to pay the balance amount as per their contention and the refund of premium amount, by way of two demand drafts.
Again the appellant/ opposite partys is averment that the cheques being unused were destroyed is not acceptable.
It is the duty of the appellant to return the cheque leaves if the loan is cleared and not to destroy them without informing the complainant. It was the opposite parties who approached the complainant to avail the loan scheme of top-up facility and so the purpose of collecting loan transaction fees and insurance premium cannot be justified because, it is an indirect way of penalizing the complainant who already availed the loan from the opposite party/appellant. Similarly the respondent/complainant is not entitled for refund of August instalment, as there is no proof to substantiate his case. The District Forum has passed an order with proper perspective without answering the question as to the interest.
10. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed, directing the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to pay Rs.15,772/- the balance amount of loan at the agreed rate of interest of 15.75% from the date of payment modifying the order of the District Forum by reducing the compensation of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) and confirming the rest of the order. No order as to costs in this appeal.
VASUGI RAMANAN, J.JAYARAM MEMBER PRESIDING JUDL.MEMBER INDEX : YES / NO sg/B-II/VR/Edn.