STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, CENTRALIZED LOAN PROCESSING UNIT Vs. K.PURUSHOTHAMAN
LAWS(TNCDRC)-2008-3-3
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on March 28,2008

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.SAMPATH, J. - (1.) The opposite party in O.P. No. 256 of 2002 on the file of the District Forum, Chennai (North) is the appellant herein.
(2.) The case of the complainant was as follows: - He had submitted a loan application to purchase a car with the relevant papers. The opposite party did not inform the complainant as to whether the loan had been sanctioned or rejected. However, he received a letter on 05/04/2002 intimating that the loan had already been disbursed and that the first instalment was being deducted from the loan amount. There was no prior call or intimation before the said letter. As the terms and conditions were not satisfactory to him, the complainant had intimated the bank on 07/04/2002 about his cancellation of the loan and non-availing of the facility. But the opposite party was using the electronic clearance service and collecting instalment amount from May to July, 2002 for the unavailed and cancelled loan totalling Rs.22,500/-. The withdrawal of three monthly instalments by the opposite party bank from the complainants account clearly showed the deficiency in service. Oral and personal complaints were not responded to. Consequent to the unauthorised withdrawal, the complainants cheque issued in favour of M/s Maruthi Country Wide Finance where he availed loan got bounced resulting in his mental tension and annoyance. After notice issued on behalf of the complainant, the opposite party bank had given two cheques one for Rs.7500/- and another for Rs.7070.99 without paying interest as claimed. The opposite party bank was liable to refund a sum of Rs.7929.07 with interest for the amount collected from the complainants SB Account with a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of Rs.5000/-.
(3.) The version of the opposite party was as follows: - The complainant had executed a car loan cum hypothecation agreement on 29/03/2002 after accepting all the terms and conditions. He knew that the loan had been sanctioned and he had authorised to collect the instalments. The loan was disbursed and credited to the dealers account with the opposite party bank on 03/04/2002 and the complainant was kept informed of such disbursal besides confirming the loan account number to the complainant. The complainant had admitted to have received on 05/04/2002. The complainant had only informed the opposite party on 19/04/2002 and requested the opposite party to cancel the loan and return the document to him. On the very same day the opposite party advised the dealer to cancel the loan and requested to refund the amount credited to them. Prior to 19/04/2002, there was no request or intimation from the complainant asking the opposite party to cancel the loan. The complainant had not intimated the opposite party on 07/04/2002. It was false. As the complainant had authorised and empowered the opposite party to effect the recovery of the loan from the date of disbursal of the loan, the opposite party was collecting the instalment till May, 2002. The opposite party was entitled to retain an amount of Rs.7929.07 being the interest and incidental charges leviable on the loan amount disbursed, which was outstanding till the return of the amount paid to the dealer. The complaint was liable to be dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.