Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd asked to pay Rs 47K to loan customer

9 MAR, 2012, 02.15PM IST, PTI 




NEW DELHI: Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd (Chola) has been ordered by a Delhi consumer forum to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation to one of its customers for not issuing a no-dues certificate to him despite getting settled its loan to him and withdrawing over Rs 22000 instead from his bank. 

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum also asked the non-banking financial firm to return over Rs 22,000 to the customer that it had withdrawn from his bank account, using his documents unauthorisedly. 

"The company received the settled amount as per the terms of settlement. Thereafter, it should have issued no-dues certificate to the complainant. The firm, instead, withdrew an amount of Rs 11,299 on two occasions from his bank account, much beyond the period of receipt of the settled sum. 

"It should have also returned back all relevant documents to the complainant or should have given undertaking that it would not use those documents for any purpose," said the forum presided over by B B Chaudhary. 

Observing that "the act of the company cannot be approved by any stretch of imagination," it added, "The act of the company has caused deficiency in service. It has occurred due to severe negligence on the part of the company." 

Arora, in his plea, had said as per an agreement reached with the company for settlement of a loan of Rs 3.8 lakh that he had taken from it, he paid Rs 2.5 lakh to it. 

He alleged despite receiving the full and final amount for the loan settlement, the firm failed to issue a no-dues certificate to him and instead illegally withdrew Rs 11,299 twice from his account.

Quotes Gems- Determination :

" A champion is one who gets up when he can't. "









Jack Dempsey:

• June 24, 1895 - May 31, 1983
• Jack Dempsey is one of the most famous
•  and popular American boxers in history.
•  He held the heavyweight title from 1919 to 1926. 

D.Chandran V/S M/s.Indian Bank

A.IR:1064/2010

A-1708/2010 (Waiver) – Ld. Counsel Shri DineshKumar appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated that the actual loan availed by the petitioner is only Rs.2.80 lakhs in the year 1992 and that the petitioners have already paid Rs.8,54,692/- under the OTS Scheme and therefore this Tribunal is not required to pass any orders towards compliance of Section 21 of the RDDB & FI Act.

Ld. Counsel Shri Balasubramanian appearing on behalf of the respondent bank stated that the amount determined is Rs.40,60,528/- and stated that this Tribunal may take note of the fact that the loan has been remaining unpaid for a long time and stated that this Tribunal may impose a condition of depositing 75% of the dues to comply with Section 21 of the RDDB & FI Act.  

The Ld. Counsel also stated that this Tribunal may not pass any orders of interim stay unless the pre-deposit under Section 21 is complied with.  Ld. Counsel also added that there is no OTS in this case and that the sums of money stated to have been deposited by the petitioners has already been given credit to and as of now the due amount as stated by him stands and this Tribunal has to reckon the pre-deposit based on that amount and stated that the orders may be passed in the interest of public money.

Heard the Ld. Counsel.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case more particularly in view of the fact that the amount determined is Rs. 40,60,528/- and further in view of the fact that the loan is of the year 1992 i.e., nearly 20 years ago, it would be appropriate if the following order is passed:

“The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.20,30,264/- being 50% of the amount determined, into this Tribunal on or before 30.4.2012”

Call on 1.5.2012 for verification of the deposit.

This order was delivered by the Honble Chair Person 

of the DRAT Chennai on 7th March 2012

Grievance Redressal Mechanism in Banks – Display of Names of Nodal Officers

RBI/2011-12/426
DBOD.No. Leg.BC.83/ 09.07.005/2011-12


March 5, 2012


All Scheduled Commercial Banks
(excluding RRBs)


Dear Sir


Grievance Redressal Mechanism in Banks –
Display of Names of Nodal Officers


Please refer to our Circular DBOD.No.Leg.BC.24 /09.07.005/2009-10 dated July  21, 2009 wherein banks were, inter alia, advised to display the names and other details of the officials at their Head Office / Zonal Offices / Regional Offices  including the names of the Nodal Officers / Principal Nodal Officers appointed  under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 on their web-sites who can be contacted for redressal of complaints. Banks were also advised to display the names, addresses, telephone numbers and fax numbers of their CMD / CEO, Line Functioning Heads for operations such as, Credit Cards, Loans and Advances, Retail Banking, Personal Banking, Rural / Agricultural Banking, SME Banking, etc on their web-sites to enable their customers to approach them, if necessary.


2. With a view to making the Grievance Redressal Mechanism more effective, in addition to the instructions contained in the above mentioned circular, banks are further advised as under:


Ensure that the Principal Nodal Officer appointed under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme is of a sufficiently senior level, not below the rank of a General Manager.


Contact details including name, complete address, telephone / fax number, email address, etc., of the Principal Nodal Officer needs to  be prominently displayed in the portal of the bank preferably on the first page of the web-site so that the aggrieved customer can  approach the bank with a sense of satisfaction that she / he has been attended at a senior level.


Grievance Redressal Mechanism (GRM) should be made simpler even if it is linked to call centre of customer care unit without customers facing hassles of proving identity, account details, etc.


Adequate and wider publicity are also required to be given by the respective financial services provider.


3.  The name and address of the Principal Nodal Officer may also be forwarded  to the  Chief General Manager, Customer Service Department, Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, 1st Floor, Amar Building, Sir P.M.Road, Mumbai-400 001 (email).


Yours faithfully,


(Deepak Singhal)
Chief General Manager-in-Charge

Quotes Gems on Determination

"The difference between the impossible and


 the possible lies in a person's determination." 








             -    Tommy Lasorda 

Contempt of Supreme Court Judgment by Officers of Debt Recovery Tribunals

To,                                                                                               5-3-2012

 Hon Chief Justice of India

 Supreme Court of India

 New Delhi- 110 001

Respected Hon Chief Justice of India,

Sub:  Contempt of Supreme Court Judgment by Officers of Debt Recovery Tribunals

Whereas legislature has enacted the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act (Hereinafter referred to as RDDBFI Act) and the Bill seeks to provide for the establishment of Tribunal and Appellate Tribunals for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions.. Under the said RDDBFI Act, Debt Recovery Tribunals (hereinafter referred to as DRT) have been established.

Whereas all the Tribunals where under the administrative control and supervision of their respective departments and concerned Ministries.

Whereas the Question of Judicial Independence, appointments, safety of tenure, termination, funding for salaries, benefits and facilities was sought to be clarified by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon Supreme Court of India.  The said questions were answered by the Constitutional Bench of Hon Supreme Court of India in Union of India, Madras Bar Association vs R.Gandhi, President  Madras Br Association and Union of India ( 2010 INDLAW SC 405).

 Whereas to prevent the appearance of partiality and to separate Judiciary from Executive branch in the conduct of Judicial Proceedings and decisions in the Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals, the Hon Supreme Court decided to give Judicial Freedom by ordering the transfer of all Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals to Ministry of Law & Justice.

Whereas the Hon Supreme Court made the following among other orders : Para 56(ix) ……..the selection Committee should broadly be on the following lines: (a) Chief Justice of India or his nominee- Chairperson(with a casting vote); (b) A senior Judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of High Court-Member; (c) Secretary in the Ministry of Finance and company Affairs-Member; and (d) Secretary in the ministry of law and justice- Member.  Para 56 (xiii)…The Administrative support for all Tribunals should be from the Ministry of Law & Justice. Neither the Tribunals nor its members shall seek or be provided with facilities from the respective sponsoring or parent Ministries or concerned Department.(emphasized)

In gross contempt of Hon Supreme Court Constitutional Bench directives, Officials of Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) continue to draw their salaries, benefits, perks from Ministry of Finance.  Allegedly some Banks have even provided Office space and staff to the said Debt Recovery Tribunals along with cars, drivers etc. The Banks are one of the parties in all the cases adjudicated by the said tribunals. This is nothing but illegal benefit being given by banks to officials of Debt Recovery Tribunals.

Whereas Ministry of Finance has transferred Income Tax Appellate Tribunals to Ministry of Law & Justice in obedience of the Supreme Court directives, the strong Banking Lobby is prevailing on Ministry of Finance to use delay tactics for nearly two years to defeat the Hon Supreme court directive for transfer of DRT to Ministry of Law & Justice.

Whereas the DRT proceedings, attire, environment of DRT has been created to give the impression of adjudication by unbiased courts the said officials are cheating the borrowers by functioning unconstitutionally and by their disobedience of Hon Supreme Court directives to separate Executive from Judiciary and not to seek any administrative support from parent ministry which is Ministry of Finance in this case.

Borrowers are not getting fair hearing and adjudication from the said Hon DRT which does not have Judicial freedom to adjudicate cases in an impartial manner without fear or favor as guaranteed by Constitution.

Borrowers Rights Forum prays for implementation of Hon Supreme Court Judgment and immediate transfer of DRT to Ministry of Law and Justice and to initiate contempt proceedings against DRT Officials for failing to comply with Constitutional Bench decision of Hon Supreme Court of India.

Most obediently,

Dr C Suresh

Secretary

Borrowers Rights Forum

Saumya Nagar, NH 5

Tadepalli- 522501

A.P.