Date of filing: 17.03.2021
Date of disposal:30.12.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.MURUGAN. M.Com.,ICWA(Inter), B.L., .....MEMBER-II
CC. No.22/2021
THIS FRIDAY, THE 30th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022
Mr.G.Jagadeesan, S/o.Gajendran,
No.91, Bharathiar Street,
Govardhanagiri,
Avadi, Chennai -600 071. .........Complainant.
//Vs//
1.Muthoot Finance Limited,
V.G.K.Complex, Ground Floor, Avadi Main Road,
Govaardhanagiri, Avadi, Chennai 71.
2.Muthoot Finance Limited,
Chennai Regional Office,
New No.21, Old No.6, 1st Floor,
Aurnachalam Road, Saligramam, Chennai 93.
3.Muthoot Finance Corporation Limited,
Port Bazaar, Shop No.15,
Near Margin Free Market,
Vallakadavu Post,
Trivandrum, Kerala 695 008. ......Opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : Mr.S.MuthuKumaravel Advocate,
Counsel for the opposite parties : M/s.N.Rajkumar Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 22.12.2022 in the presence of Mr.S.MuthuKumaravel Advocate counsel for the complainant and M/s.N.Rajkumar Advocate counsel for the opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in claiming exorbitant interest along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
It was the case of the complainant that he availed a jewel loan from opposite parties for Rs.1,57,000/- in loan Account No.03765/SSS/000179, repayable together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum monthly rest on or before 05.12.2020. The complainant was regular and prompt in payment of monthly installments. Due to unforeseen COVID 19 the 1st opposite party’s office was closed as per Government orders. Hence, the complainant was not in a position to remit the monthly dues. The complainant was under the bone fide belief that he would be informed about the opening of the office. In the meanwhile strict orders were issued by the Government not to levy exorbitant interest during Corona period and most of the institutions were kind enough to waive the interest considering the pathetic plight of the customers. The complainant’s area had been worst affected by corona virus and the movements of the residents were restricted. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party on 10.06.2020 and requested to waive the penal interest there was no response and later on the complainant was compelled to pay the amount with exorbitant interest as demanded. The 1st opposite party refused to receive the monthly dues from the complainant. There was no explanation when the complainant questioned about the non disclosure of the opening of the office. Instead the complainant was informed that the message was conveyed to their friend through phone. The complainant requested the opposite parties to consider his legitimate requisition and to send a revised statement with regard to the actual dues payment by him after waiving the penal and exorbitant charges, since the complainant was not at all responsible for the delay through a legal notice dated 08.01.2021 but there was not response from the opposite parties. Thus aggrieved the present complaint was filed by the complainant for the following reliefs as mentioned below;
To direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused by the complainant due to the deficiency in service;
To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties:-
The opposite parties filed version stating that the date of borrowal by the complainant was on 11.12.2019 and the complaint was filed in February 2021 after 14 months. The claim that the complainant has been regular and prompt in payment of the monthly installments to the opposite parties till the COVID-19 was denied. The complainant had paid very paltry sums till March 2020 towards the interest since the date of borrowal during December 2019. The opposite parties office were only closed for a very brief period during the Covid outbreak 2020 and with proper precautions the business of the opposite parties commenced on 05.05.2020 itself and all the customers of the opposite parties promptly paid the interest towards their respective loan. Moreover the transactions were normally happening in all the branches of the opposite parties. The complainant is very well aware that on line payments towards interest can be made to the opposite parties through the options of Google Pay, Phone Pay etc. This being so the complainant along with his friend started making untenable allegations such as the opposite parties refused to receive payments. Ombudsman had rightly rejected the claim of the complainant after detail study and finding that the complainant was at fault. The opposite parties have sent many messages to the complainant apart from calling them personally through their staff members to remit payment and to inform that they are open for business. In these circumstances the unilateral claims of the complainant was deemed to be viewed as fraudulent. Hence the question of deficiency in service or negligence by the opposite parties can never be raised. The opposite parties states that the complainant was bound to pay interest on the sum borrowed till date of payment and many customers of the opposite parties bonafidely availed necessary waiver as they acted fair, and just apart from honoring their commitments towards the loan agreement. Not a single document could be produced by the complainant that the opposite party demanded exorbitant interest other than the agreed rate of interest as per the contract duly executed by the complainant with his own will and volition with the opposite parties. The complainant is presently due liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,24,000/- on the borrowed sum of Rs.1,57,000/- . To escape his liability the demand of Rs.5,00,000/- was made fraudulently. Thus the opposite parties sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
The complainant has filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 were marked on their side. On the side of opposite parties proof affidavit was filed and Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 were marked on their side.
Points for consideration:-
Whether the alleged deficiency in service against the opposite party in the matter of repayment of jewel loan availed by the complainant has been successfully proved by him?
If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
On the side of the complainant the following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;
Loan Sanction letter dated 11.12.2019 was marked as Ex.A1;
Written complaint to the 1st opposite party dated 10.02.2020 was marked as Ex.A2;
Copy of emails were marked as Ex.A3 to Ex.A7;
Letter received form Ombudsman scheme for NBFC dated 05.01.2021 was marked as Ex.A8;
Legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 08.01.2021 was marked as Ex.A9;
Acknowledgement cards were marked as Ex.A10 & Ex.A11;
Notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant was marked as EX.A12;
Receipt for three months was marked as Ex.A13;
On the side of the opposite parties the following documents were filed in support of their contention;
Power of Attorney was marked as Ex.B1;
Gold Loan Ledger was marked as Ex.B2;
Heard the oral arguments adduced by both the parties and perused the material evidences and pleadings submitted by them.
The crux of the oral arguments adduced by the complainant is that they were prevented from paying the interest. On 10.06.2020 when he approached the 1st opposite party along with his friend with respect to the jewel loan availed by him for an amount of Rs.1,57,000/- due to the refusal by the opposite party to receive the interest, the interest amount got accumulated for which the opposite party had imposed an exorbitant penal interest. Thus when the complainant requested the opposite party to consider his request to provide a revised statement with regard to actual dues to be paid by him and to waive the penal exorbitant charges, the opposite party did not issue any Statement of Accounts and thus the present complaint was filed and thus he aruged that the complaint has to be allowed.
On the other hand the opposite parties contented that the complainant is bound by contract and he had paid only two months interest. It is their arguments that the complainant wantonly avoided the payment of interest citing the reason of COVID when ample option like internet pay, Google Pay and Phone Pay are available to pay the interest. Further it is submitted that the opposite parties never demanded any exorbitant interest other than the agreed rate of interest as per the contract duly executed by the complainant on his own will and volition. The complainant is presently due and liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,24,000/- on the borrowed sum of Rs.1,57,000/-. Only to escape their liability the present complaint was filed. Thus the learned counsel sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
We perused the documents and pleadings. The complainant has produced Loan Sanction Letter as Ex.A1 in proof of the loan availed by the complainant with the opposite parties which fact was not denied by the opposite parties. However, the only issue was payment of interest for the jewel loan. It is the case of the complainant that which was also seen as per the Ex.A2 that during COVID he could not pay the interest as the opposite party’s office was closed. However, when he approached along with his friend to repay the interest, but the opposite parties demanded higher amount. Hence the complainant sought for waiver of the penal interest awarded for nonpayment of interest in time. It is also his main grievance that when he sought for Statement of Accounts as to how the interest claim was arrived by the opposite party the same was not provided by them.
On the other hand the opposite parties contented that inspite of several options available the complainant failed to pay any interest on the jewel loan and he was a defaulter and had paid only interest for first two months after availing the jewel loan. In such facts and circumstances this commission is of the view that the opposite parties taking measures and demanding interest as per the terms and conditions could not be termed as deficiency in service as they had specifically stated that they are acting only in accordance with the terms and conditions which defence was also not disputed by the complainant. However, the complainant is entitled know about the interest claimed on the loan availed by him being a customer of the opposite parties. In such scenario we hold that non issuance of Statement of Accounts to the complainant by the opposite parties is clearly a deficiency in service. Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite party.
Point No.2:-
With regard to the reliefs to be granted we direct the opposite parties to provide the Statement of Accounts to the complainant with complete details of the loan availed and the interest claimed within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also award a nominal compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party in non issuance of Statement of Accounts when claimed by the complainant. We also award Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severely directed
a) to issue Statement of Accounts to the complaint with respect to the Loan Account No.03765/SSS/000179 for the period of March 2020 to till date within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant;
c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 30th day of December 2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 11.12.2019 Loan Sanction Letter. Xerox
Ex.A2 10.06.2020 Written complaint to the 1st opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A3 18.06.2020 Copy of Mail. Xerox
Ex.A4 06.07.2020 Copy of Mail. Xerox
Ex.A5 17.11.2020 Copy of Mail. Xerox
Ex.A6 24.11.2020 Copy of Mail. Xerox
Ex.A7 04.01.2021 Copy of Mail. Xerox
Ex.A8 05.01.2021 Letter received form Ombudsman scheme for NBFC. Xerox
Ex.A9 08.01.2021 Legal notice sent by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A10 ................ Acknowledgement card. Xerox
Ex.A11 ................ Acknowledgement card. Xerox
Ex.A12 .............. Notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A13 .............. Receipt for three months Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 ............... Power of Attorney. Xerox
Ex.B2 ............... Gold Loan Ledger. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
