GREESH GOYAL vs CITI BANK

A scheme was floated by M/s. Citi Bank for availability of loan for the purchase of Maruti motor car and it was to be arranged by M/s. North Land Leasing Limited, Chandigarh. The complainant remained dissatisfied and the District Forum II ordered on 5.5.1999 that a sum of Rs. 8,691/- only is to be refunded to the complainant together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till its realisation and costs Rs. 1,000/-. Greesh Goyal, the complainant, remained dissatisfied and has preferred this appeal.

BRIEFLY, the facts are that in response to a scheme floated by Citi Bank, respondent No. 1, the complainant applied for grant of a loan of Rs. 1,32,000/- for the purchase of a Maruti motor car and in order to fulfil the requirement, he deposited the sum of Rs. 28,722/- with the Manager, North Land Leasing Limited, Chandigarh, respondent No. 2 who were to deliver the motor car. This also included a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as service charges of respondent No. 2. On 10.5.1993, at the time the complainant applied for a Maruti car, its price was Rs. 1,55,971/-. However, it increased to Rs. 1,63,360/- on 2.9.1993. The grievance of the complainant/appellant had been that though he immediately responded to the scheme floated, referred to above and deposited part of the price required from him on 10.5.1993, and sanction of the loan was conveyed by Citi Bank on 19.5.1993, yet respondent No. 2 booked the motor car only on 8.6.1993. It has been specifically averred and stressed that it was an act of deficiency on the part of respondent No. 2. The complainant further had a grievance that on account of this delay, he could not be delivered a motor car at the old price and was kept away till the increase of the price on 2.9.1993. It shall be useful to refer to para Nos. 5 and 6 of the affidavit of the complainant, which are reproduced as under : "5. That even though, the loan was sanctioned on 19.5.1993, opposite party No. 2 booked Maruti car with Modern Automobiles in his favour on 8.6.1993 vide Booking No. 8082, i.e. full 20 days after the loan was sanctioned by the Citi Bank, opposite party No. 1 vide their letter No. 19.5.1993. A copy of the letter is attached as Annexure A/3. The letter vide which the loan was sanctioned must have reached the opposite party No. 2 within a day or two but the car was booked as late as on 8.6.1993. 6. That in the meanwhile the prices of Maruti cars increased on 2.9.1993 from Rs. 1,55,971/- to Rs. 1,63,360/-. On 2.9.1993 the cars which were booked upto 28.5.1993 were delivered at the booked price. Had the opposite party No. 2 booked the car on 19.5.1993, i.e. the day on which the loan was sanctioned or even before 28.5.1993, the Deponent would have got the car at the earliest rate of Rs. 1,55,971/- and would not have suffered a loss of Rs. 7,388/- as he had to pay the price of the Maruti car on the date of delivery which at that time was Rs. 1,63,360/-, which was due to the negligence on the part of opposite party No. 2. A copy of the invoice of Maruti car delivered by M/s. Modern Automobiles, booked on 27.5.1993 and delivered on 21.8.1993, showing the price of car as Rs. 1,55,209/- is attached as Annexure A/4."

The pleas taken up in the complaint and in the affidavit have not been specifically and factually controverted in a short affidavit placed on record on behalf of respondent No. 2. The District Forum only allowed the enhanced price of Rs. 8,691.15, referred to above. After considering all these facts, we hereby hold that the complainant is entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the aforesaid sum of Rs. 8,691.15 ps [and not merely 12% per annum] from the date of institution of the complaint till it is actually paid. Besides this we hold that the complainant/appellant is also entitled to refund of Rs. 5,192.82 as interest, which the dealer received from M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited and was not credited/paid to the consumer. All this liability shall be borne by respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 is also held liable to pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs and aforesaid respondent No. 2 shall disburse all these amounts. In default thereof he shall also be liable to pay future interest at the rate of 18% per annum. However the third plea regarding refund of Rs. 5,000/- as service charges by respondent No. 2 is declined. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and the order of the District Forum-II stands modified in the terms mentioned above. Appeal partly allowed.