CITI BANK Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS is an appeal against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 8. 8. 2007 in Complaint Case No. 784 of 2006, Sh. Raj Kumar v. Citi Bank and Another.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the averments made by the Complainant in his complaint were that he purchased an Indica Car in October 2001 from a dealer at Chandigarh, which was partially financed by OP No. 1 to the extent of Rs. 2,70,000. It is further averred that the OP took 44 post-dated cheques, each amounting to Rs. 7,750 as security from the Complainant being the amount of EMI. The Complainant also paid Rs. 1 lac as down payment. Vide the loan agreement, the Complainant had to pay a total amount of Rs. 3,41,000 for the loan amount of Rs. 2,70,000 over a period of four years. The cost of the car, however, was only Rs. 3,30,000. When the Complainant had purchased the car, he was residing in House No. 1043, Phase III B2, Mohali but in the year 2003, he shifted to House No. 3119, Sector 52, Mohali. It is further the case of the Complainant that as per the agreement, OP No. 2 who is the collecting agent of OP No. 1used to collect the cash payment of Rs. 7,750 (EMI) from the Complainant by sending a collection agent at the residence of the Complainant. The Complainant has also attached receipt of payment from the year 2002 to February 2005 vide Annexures C-1 to C-21. It has further been averred that the Complainant always informed the OPs about his change of address and accordingly, the collecting agent kept coming to his changed address to collect payments. The Complainant has further stated that when the payment was not collected by cash, the same was done by encashing the post-dated cheque in the custody of the OPs. The first grievance of the Complainant is that OP has not returned back those post-dated cheques for which they had received the payment in cash. The Complainant had been a good pay master and out of 44 instalments, he had already paid 39 instalments to the OP. However, with preplanned mala fide intentions, OP stopped sending its executive for collection of EMIs and suddenly on 24. 3. 2005, the car of the Complainant was taken away by the OPs without issuance of any notice whatsoever. Alleging this as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, this complaint has been filed with the prayer that OP be directed to refund the interest portion of the loan amount plus the resale price of the car and further be directed to pay another sum of Rs. 2 lacs towards mental torture.

(3.) THE version of OP is that interest is always charged on the loan amount advanced and, therefore, there is no question of the interest to be refunded to the Complainant. It has been admitted that the Complainant had deposited 44 post-dated cheques of Rs. 7,750 each but from 26. 11. 2001, most of issued cheques bounced and, therefore, the OP Bank had to collect the due amount by sending agent of the Bank. It, however, has been denied that as per the agreement, cash had to be collected from the residence of the Complainant. As regards return of the post-dated cheques, against which cash payment had been received, the version of OP is that these cheques have bounced with regular frequency and, therefore, there is no question of returning the same and it has been emphasized by OP No. 1 that from repayment of sale of loan, it is evident that he took the repayment very lightly because of regular bouncing of post-dated cheques. It has also been stated by the Bank that the bank was authorized to charge cheque bouncing charges and the same were added to the account of the customer. As regards repossession of the vehicle, it is the case of OP that the OP Bank was duly within its right to repossess the vehicle in respect of repeated defaults of pending dues and the Bank had totally acted in terms of loan agreement vide which it was under no obligation to send any notice to the Complainant when the Complainant did not follow the due procedure of repayment schedule.