AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
AGGRIEVED of the order dated 19.1.2010 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad by which the State Commission dismissed the complaint No. 2 of 2007 filed by the appellant before the State Commission, the appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal before the National Commission challenging the State Commission''s order.
THE facts which are relevant for its disposal are that the appellant was having credit card (No. 5548374279632092) of the respondent/OP bank as a part of business and a second credit card (No. 4476925497872247) also came to be issued to him even as he was already holding the first credit card. As per the allegation, the appellant/complainant kept the transactions of both the credit cards clear and up -to -date. According to him, the OP bank sent a letter dated 1.5.2005 for pre -approval of personal loan of Rs. 5 lakhs along with a certificate about the said personal loan of Rs. 5 lakhs. This loan was repayable in 48 months with monthly repayment installments of Rs. 13,903/ - and the rate of interest was 14.95% besides the processing fee of 1%. As per the allegation, the OP bank sent the payment schedule on 17.8.2005 followed by another schedule dated 8.4.2006 in which the OP bank indicated the installment of Rs. 13,903/ - per month as well as an additional installment (49) of Rs. 3346.37P payable by the appellant/complainant. Not only this, the OP bank also charged more interest on the first installment amount on 15.8.2005. It is stated by the complainant that the OP bank decided that the monthly installment amount by way of repayment of the loan shall be cleared through ECS on 15 date of each month for which the signature of the complainant was obtained on the form and accordingly the OP bank was sending the schedule sheet of repayment of loan installments through ECS to the complainant/appellant. It is the case of the complainant that the OP bank in order to get monthly benefit in an illegal way, obtained the payment through the ECS on 13.12.2005 which was contrary to the terms of the agreement and hence illegal since repayment earlier then 15 of the month was not permissible. As a result of these illegal actions on the part of the OP bank, the complainant had to suffer huge loss of interest which according to him is illegal and contrary to the agreed terms and conditions and hence he wrote a letter to the OP bank which did not reply to that. It is stated that a cheque which was supposed to be deposited on 15.06.2006 had been deposited prior to that date and the said cheque sent for clearing on 13.6.2006, i.e., 2 days earlier and because of insufficient balance, the cheque was returned to the bank. Treating these actions on the part of the bank illegal, unjust and against the terms of the agreement, the complainant filed his consumer complaint before the State Commission wherein he claimed Rs. 25 lakhs towards compensation on account of deficiency in service along with 35% interest from the date of complaint till its realization.
ON being noticed by the State Commission, the OP bank filed its reply in which it was claimed that the complaint against the bank is false and baseless. The OP bank also submitted that vide its letter dated 7.3.2006 it had already been explained by the OP bank to the complainant/appellant as to why the cheques are sent for clearance 2 to 3 days prior to due date. It was further submitted by the bank that after its letter, the appellant/complainant wilfully took the position not to repay the dues of the bank and he also resorted to file the complaint in question in order to wriggle out of all his committed liabilities. According to the OP bank as per the system in vogue, the ECS would be raised on or around 10 of every month in the manner that the amount of EMI is received by HSBC on or before 15 of every month so as to ensure that the procedure of interest calculation as per the computer system always remains operational and transparent. It was also explained by the OP bank in its reply that 48 EMI installments at the rate of Rs. 13,903/ - and 49 installment in the sum of Rs. 3346.37P takes care of full and final repayment inclusive of overdue charge. In view of this, it was claimed by the OP bank that they had not changed the terms and conditions of the agreement as wrongly alleged by the appellant/complainant. It was further stated that the change of EMI by Rs. 3346.37P has been agreed by the complainant himself. Denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP bank prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
BOTH the parties led evidence in support of their contentions before the State Commission which vide its impugned order did not find any substance in the complaint and hence dismissed the same. As stated above, the complainant/appellant has now filed the present appeal challenging this impugned order of the State Commission. We have heard the appellant who has appeared in person and argued his case himself and Shri Ajay Monga, Advocate appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the record.
THE appellant has admitted that he had defaulted in repayment of the loan after 2006. However, his main grievance is that the debit in his account in respect of the repayment of the loan was being made before the due date of 15 which upset his cash management in his bank account leading to dishonouring of other cheques and as such his credit rating suffered in the books of Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited (CIBIL). The appellant submitted that besides loss of reputation, this also caused huge financial loss inasmuch as another loan of Rs. 25 lakhs which had been sanctioned to him was refused because of lower credit rating. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order of the State Commission which does not take into consideration these relevant facts, deserves to be set aside and the compensation prayed for by him in his complaint should be allowed keeping in view the financial loss suffered by him on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank.
ON the other hand, counsel for respondent bank submitted that the debiting into his loan account in respect of the repayment of the loan was being done by 15th of every month through ECS for which it was necessary that the cheque reached the concerned branch well before 15th of every month. He pointed out that the procedure in this regard had been fully explained by the OP bank to him while settling the terms and conditions of the loan repayment by the OP bank. He has vehemently denied any deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank in this regard. He also stated that the loan of Rs. 25 lakhs referred to by the appellant has not been sanctioned to him but was only an offer sent by the bank on 25.2.2006 as would be clear from letter dated 25.2.2006 sent by the ICICI bank to the appellant, a copy of which is placed at page 56 of the paper book. It would also be seen from this letter of ICICI bank that it was a simple offer given by the ICICI bank subject to certain terms and conditions to which the response of the appellant was sought. This offer was further subject to fulfilment of a number of conditions and filing of documents. So far as the allegation of the appellant regarding his credit rating in the books of CIBIL is concerned, learned counsel submitted that the appellant himself was to be blamed for what happened to him on account of the default of installments by him which are not under dispute but the same cannot be treated any deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that there is no merit in the appeal and the impugned order which is a well -reasoned order passed by the State Commission deserves to be confirmed and the appeal be dismissed. Perusal of the impugned order shows that keeping in view the nature of grievance and the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Commission had focused on two main points which were required to be dealt by it in order to decide the complaint lodged by the complainant/appellant. These points may be reproduced thus: - - "(1) Whether there is any agreement by and between the parties that the complainant has to pay Rs. 5,00,000/ - plus interest @ 14.95% per annum to the bank by way of monthly installment of Rs. 13,903/ - and whether parties had agreed that Rs. 3346.37 towards repayment for 49 installment would take care of full and final repayment inclusive of overdue charge?
(2) Whether bank is entitled to deposit installment cheque 3 -4 days prior to due date i.e. 15 of every month -
BASED on the evidence before it, the State Commission has returned its finding in the affirmative in respect of both these points which led to the dismissal of the complaint by the State Commission. The State Commission has recorded the following reasons in support of its impugned order: - - "9. It is required to be noted that there is no dispute with regard to allotment of credit cards to the complainant and thereafter granting a personal loan of Rs. 5,00,000/ -. There is also no dispute that the said loan is availed by the complainant and repayment schedule has been fixed and the rate of interest has been fixed @ 14.95% per annum. The only thing which is required to be dealt with by this Commission is whether the bank is entitled to deposit the cheque prior to 15 of each month (i.e. 3 -4 days prior) just to see that the amount can be recovered on 15 of every month and for which the complainant has agreed or not? So far as installments are concerned, there is no dispute that installments of 48 months were fixed and later on it has been rescheduled to 49 last installment being of Rs. 3346.37 which was required to be paid by the complainant to the Bank. 48 EMIs at the rate of Rs. 13,903/ - and remaining amount of Rs. 3346.37 towards repayment of 49 month would take care of full and final repayment inclusive of over due charge. There is evidence on record to show that complainant has signed all the documents and wherever corrections are made there initials have been put by the complainant. Complainant being a business man and a qualified person it is very difficult to accept that he has signed all the documents on blank and later on it has been concocted. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the same cannot be accepted. There is ample documentary evidence on record to show that there is negligence in the repayment for which the complainant had agreed and he was duty bound to do so. In view of the above, we do not find any substance in the complaint."
WE agree with the view taken by the State Commission while dismissing the complaint. After perusing the record, we are also convinced that the OP bank has acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan repayment which had been explained to him and accepted by him. It appears that the appellant has been trying to cut it too fine with regard to the date of repayment of loan on 15 of every month thereby finding fault with the procedure adopted by the OP bank in respect of the debiting of the cheque prior to due date which is normally essential to ensure the availability of funds on the due date. This is a normal practice followed by the banks and the same cannot be treated as deficiency in service. The appellant who wanted to enjoy the facility of two credit cards should have taken care to ensure that he had enough financial strength through his bank accounts to deal with the payments due against him. Admittedly, the appellant defaulted in repayments and he also failed to take any remedial measures to set the position right. In the circumstances, we agree with the counsel for the OP bank that the appellant himself was to be blamed for the loss of credit rating, if any, in the books of CIBIL. In view of the above discussion, we agree with the State Commission and do not find any substance in the appeal which would call for any interference with the impugned order. Nothing has been placed before us to justify taking a different view. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and confirm the impugned order. No costs.