SUBHADIP MITRA Vs. INDIABULLS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the judgment and order No. 25 dated 13.3.2013 passed by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, in CDF/Unit -I/Case No. 317/2010, allowing the Complaint on contest with a direction to the Respondents/OPs to pay to the Appellant/Complainant Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as litigation cost, apart from interest @ 10% p.a. for the period of default in case of default. The Respondents/OPs were also directed not to claim any amount as also not to proceed under the Negotiable Instrument Act and to issue 'No Dues' Certificate to the Appellant/Complainant. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant/Complainant obtained a Personal Loan of Rs. 30,488 (Letter dated 12.7.2007 of the Respondents/OPs, Application No. A1100563, Running Page -10 of the Memo of Appeal). Out of the said amount the Respondents/OPs disbursed Rs. 26,710 by Cheque No. 002803 dated 12.7.2007 (Loan Account No. S000199629) after deducting processing charges, etc. The said loan amount was repayable in 30 equal monthly instalments. When the Appellant/Complainant defaulted in payment of some remaining instalments, the Appellant/Complainant approached the Respondents/OPs with a proposal for one -time settlement of the outstanding loan amount. Then, one employee (I.D. No. TMI 5729) of the Respondents/OPs offered the Appellant/Complainant for one -time settlement of the loan amount against the total payment of Rs. 8,000 in two instalments of Rs. 4,000 each. Accordingly, the Appellant/Complainant paid Rs. 4,000 twice against Money Receipts dated 23.9.2008 and 29.8.2008. After such repayment of the loan amount of one -time settlement the Respondents/OPs did not issue 'No Dues' Certificate as assured to the Appellant/Complainant before such one -time settlement. Thereafter, when the Appellant/Complainant enquired, the Respondents/OPs replied that such payment was not related to one -time settlement. On being so informed, the Appellant/Complainant again approached the Respondents/OPs for further one -time settlement, and in response, the Respondents/OPs by their settlement letter No. STL 51271 dated 7.4.2010 (Book No. STL 5104, Running Page -12 of the Memo of Appeal) informed the Appellant/Complainant that outstanding loan amount of Rs. 20,369 as standing on that date, 'shall stand settled in full and final and nothing shall be due and payable' against one -time payment of Rs. 6,000 by cash within April, 2010. Accordingly, the Appellant/Complainant paid Rs. 6,000 as 'foreclose amount' by cash on 9.4.2010 through Collection Receipt No. STL -PS -2131 of Book No. STL -PS -427 of the Respondents/OPs (Running Page -13). Meanwhile, the Appellant/Complainant received a summon from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (Special Court), Gurgaon, Haryana for appearance there on 6.5.2010 in connection with a Criminal Case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoring of cheques with value of Rs. 29,485. But the said case was withdrawn on 26.10.2010, vide Order dated 26.10.2010 of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gurgaon, Haryana. Thereafter, 'No Due' Certificate in respect of the said loan was issued by the Respondents/OPs on 24.2.2011 (Running Page -61 of the Memo of Appeal). In this backdrop, the learned District Forum passed the impugned judgment and order in the manner aforesaid.

(2.) THE learned Advocate for the Appellant/Complainant submits that despite payment of one -time settled amount, i.e., Rs. 6,000 on 9.4.2010 towards full and final settlement of the outstanding amount of loan, the Respondents/OPs not only lingered till 24.2.2011 to issue 'No Dues' Certificate in respect of the loan, but also pursued the aforesaid Criminal Case before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gurgaon. In such acts of lingering issuance of 'No Dues' Certificate and pursuing the Criminal Case, lies the gross deficiency and unfairness in practice on the part of the Respondents/OPs, the learned Advocate adds. Finally, the learned Advocate contends that in the background of such gross deficiency and unfairness in practice on the part of the Respondents/OPs the compensation awarded by the learned District Forum appears to be inadequate and unfair, and hence, the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned District Forum should be enhanced to the extent of matching with gravity of the deficiency and unfairness in practice.

(3.) IN the Written Version, as available on records, the Respondents/OPs had denied the fact of one -time settlement along with denial of issuance of any letter dated 7.4.2010 by them to that effect (Page -5 Para -10 of the Written Version, Running Page -32 of the Memo of Appeal). In the said Written Version the Respondents/OPs further stated that they were not in deficiency in service and no unfair practice was there on their part, and submitted a prayer before the learned Forum below for dismissal of the Complaint.