<br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> <br /> These complaints are filed by the complainants against the same common Ops in the first and second complaint and the opponent in the third complainant though are different but the allegations are similar claiming the same reliefs as such are taken together for disposal by a common order. <br /> <br /> The complainants of three respective complaints are herein after referred to as 1st complainant, 2nd complainant and 3rd complainant for the sake of convenience.<br /> <br /> The brief facts of the complaint filed by the 1st complainant are that he as taken a credit card has detailed in the compliant from the Ops and was using it and never committed any default in repayment. That he on 24-02-2009 gave representation to the Ops that because of recession in the economy there was problem with regard to cash flow. Therefore he was not able to pay the stipulated EMI’s and requested the Ops to that repayment of credit card dues be re-scheduled and re-structured the term of payment from 20 EMI’s to 60 EMI’s. The Ops have charged illegal and un-authorized charges contrary to the provision to the Indian contract Act. That he is not able to pay stipulated EMI’s That the Ops have charged excessive interest more then 30% which is contrary to law and has referred to an Article published in several newspapers regarding deduction of EMI’s and extending time for repayment etc.<br /> <br /> The 2nd complainant has admitted to had obtained personal loan from the Ops and repaid without committing any default. That he on 20-04-2009 gave representation to the Ops stating that because of recession of economy he had problem in the flow of cash. Therefore he was not able to pay the stipulated EMI’s and requested the Ops that repayment of credit card dues be re-scheduled and re-structured the term of payment from 20 EMI’s to 60 EMI’s. The Ops have charged illegal and un-authorized charges contrary to the provision to the Indian contract Act. That he is not able to pay stipulated EMI’s. That the Ops have charged excessive interest more then 30% which is contrary to law and has referred to an Article published in several newspapers regarding deduction of EMI’s and extending time for repayment etc.<br /> <br /> The 3rd complainant has contended to had awailed credit card and visa card from Ops was using them and not committed any default. That he on 13-04-2009 he gave representation to the Ops stating that because of recession of economy he had problem in the flow of cash. Therefore he was not able to pay the stipulated EMI’s and requested the Ops that repayment of credit card dues be re-scheduled and re-structured the term of payment from 20 EMI’s to 60 EMI’s. The Ops have charged illegal and un-authorized charges contrary to the provision of the Indian contract Act. That he is not able to pay stipulated EMI’s That the Ops have charged excessive interest more then 30% which is contrary to law and has referred to Article published in several newspapers regarding deduction of EMI’s extending time for repayment etc.<br /> <br /> Ops have appeared through their advocate filed version for all these three cases by narrating certain common facts in respect of these three complaints and specific averements in respect of each of these transactions and defaults of the complainants. In the 1st complainant Ops have stated that the complainant after availing credit card with credit limit of Rs.1,36,000/- utilized that facility as he wished and he was requested to pay the utilized amount every month to them. But the complainant has committed chronic default in paying that amount despite demands. That this complainant has on 09-03-2009 was due Rs.1,66,749/- was required to pay minimum amount of Rs.51,949.99 but did not pay. That the account statement dated 09-12-2008 out of the total outstanding amount Rs.1,47,658/- he did not make any payment and after committing such repeated defaults this complainant as on 09-02-2009 was due of Rs.1,60,269.44 ps but only paid Rs.736.18 during that particular month and committed default there on. <br /> <br /> Coming to the 2nd complainant Ops have by admitting the loan transaction that the complainant had with them have further contended that this complainant has proved himself as an un-pardonable defaulter who had promised to discharge his liability by repaying the loan regularly in 36 monthly installments of Rs.9290/- with interest but has not paid them regularly. That they had advanced a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant on 7-03-2006, with this complainant had paid 27 installments which are not regular and committed default in not paying the remaining 23 installments and stated his ECS drawn towards payment of installments were also bounced. This complainant being a defaulter with dis-honest intention has filed this compliant and stated that there is no merits in it. <br /> <br /> Coming to the version of the Ops in the third referred complainant to credit card transaction of this complainant and stated that he is due rs.1,18,056/86ps under one card and Rs.4,38,086/05ps under another credit card and in all due of Rs.5,56,142/91 ps. The complainant who was strictly requested to adhere to the terms and conditions the card and agreement has not paid outstanding amount which warranted imposition of interest and other charges on the outstanding dues. OP thus has contended that the compliant is not maintainable. <br /> <br /> The Ops further in this version have referred to the paper publication relied upon by the complainants and they have stated such publications are not relevant to the facts of this case and these complainants do not fall within the purview of SME ( Small and Medium enterprises scheme) as stated in that Article published in Times of India. That they are only a suggestive measures and guidelines to the debtors for planning in respect of housing loan and other long terms loan availed under priority sector and they further stating that the complainants who have committed gross defaults have not shown any bonafides in the payment which has warranted imposition of certain charges as per the guidelines of RBI and denying any deficiency at their end have prayed for dismissal of the complaints by further contending that the complainants are not maintainable.<br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry into these complaints, the complainants and one Sathish Kumar in the 1st complaint, one Srikant as a power of Attorney holder in the 2nd compliant and one Sunil Kumar Pillai for Ops in 3rd complaint have filed their affidavit evidence re-producing what they have stated in their respective compliant and version. The complainants along with the complaints have filed copies of article appeared in Times of India a daily newspaper. The 3rd complainant produced a copy of a representation he had given to the 1st Op alongwith a statement copy dated 02-02-2009. Ops have produced few copies of statements pertaining to the account of these complainants. <br /> <br /> We have heard the counsel for the Ops. The complainants and their advocates have remained absent on few occasions when the complaints were posted for arguments and subsequently. Hence they are taken as heard and posted these complaints for orders. <br /> <br /> On the above materials placed before us, following points for determination arise: <br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainants prove that the Ops have caused deficiency in their service in not re-scheduling and re-structuring of schedule payments by extending the terms of repayment from the fixed EMI’s to more EMI’s has sought ?<br /> <br /> 2. To what relief the complainants are entitled to ?<br /> <br /> Our findings are as under:-<br /> <br /> Point No: 1 in the negative.<br /> Point No: 2: see the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS: As evident from the complaints filed by each of these complainants, the 1st complainant has admitted to had availed credit card from the Ops, utilized and has committed default in not paying the amount due under the credit card. Complainant NO:2 admitted to had availed loan from the Ops and that Ops have stated that they have granted Rs.2.5 lakh loan to the 2nd complainant and the 2nd complainant has further admitted to have not paid the installments as agreed. Similarly the 3rd complainant admitted to had taken two credit cards from the Ops and he also could not re-pay the amounts due under the credit cards as agreed within the stipulated period through EMI’s. These complainants have further contended because of the recession in the economy there was a problem in regard to cash flow. Therefore they were not able to repay the outstanding amounts to the Ops. It is their further contention that their request to the Ops to reschedule the repayment schedule by extending number of EMI’s was not considered and all these complainants together have stated that several paper cuttings they have referred to in the complaints say that the Ops are required to re-schedule the re-payments and that interest charged is excessive. Ops as against this claim of the complainants have stated that paper publication relied upon by the complainants have no effect on the nature of the transaction that this complainants had with them and thus paper publications only referred to guidelines for regulating repayments by the debtors in connection with certain nature of loans. They have further stated that these complainants who had availed loan and credit card facilities were required to pay some minimum amounts every month as per the statement of the accounts have not kept up their promises and having committed default by themselves, are the reasons and responsible for imposing interest and other charges and thereby have denied any deficiency in their service at their end.<br /> <br /> The complainants and their advocates have not at all brought to our notice or appraised us regarding any circular or notification issued by the Head office of the OP or the Reserve bank of India providing for re-scheduling of repayments and to increase number of EMI’s, they have also not specifically stated and shown to us any excessive interest or charges levied on them. All the allegations of the complainants are general in nature based on some paper cuttings which cannot be construed as guidelines of Reserve Bank in this regard. The complainants have not rebutted the contention of the OPs with regards to the defaults committed by these complainants and their right of charging the defaulters with interest, penal interest and other legal charges. <br /> <br /> On careful analysis of all the contentions raised by both the parties and the whole documents they have produced we find no merits in the allegations of the complainants that the Ops have caused deficiency in their service as such we find no merits in these complaints and they are liable to be dismissed. As the result we answer Point NO:1 in the negative and pass the following order. <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaints are dismissed. No order as to cost.<br /> <br /> Keep the copies of this order in the other two connected matters. <br />