DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 23
Instituted on: 13.01.2017
Decided on: 15.05.2017
Varinder Singh S/o Gurdev Singh S/o Lal Singh R/O Village Jhuner, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its Power of Attorney Rachpal Kaur W/o Varinder Singh R/O Village Jhuner, Tehsil Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. AU Finance (India) Ltd. Through its Branch Incharge/Manager, Opp. BSNL Park, 1st Floor, Nabha Gate, Sangrur.
2. AU Finance (India) Ltd. Through its Managing Director, 19-A, Dhuleshwar Garden, Ajmer Road, Jaipur-302001.
..Opposite parties.
For the complainant : Shri Vinay K. Jindal, Adv.
For Opp.parties : Shri Naresh Juneja, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Varinder Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) through his power of attorney Smt. Rachpal Kaur on the ground that the complainant Varinder Singh is residing abroad. Further it is averred that in the year 2012, the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- to purchase a Scala Renault car for his personal use and the car was having registration number PB-13-AH-7295. The Ops further agreed to take the loan back in 48 instalments of Rs.11,360/- each, but the complainant was not provided any copy of the loan agreement and its terms and conditions.
2. Further case of the complainant is that he paid regular instalments of Rs.11,360/- each to the OPs and after depositing all the instalments of loan, the complainant requested the OPs to provide him no due certificate, but the same was not provided on the ground that an amount of Rs.57,762/- is still outstanding against him, whereas the case of the complainant is that nothing is due towards the complainant. Further case of the complainant is that the Ops provided him a copy of statement of account on 7.10.2016 and found that the Ops have shown entries of all the loan instalments, which have been deposited by the complainant, but surprised to see that the Ops have shown overdue charges, advance instalment due, loan suraksha due, advance instalment due, stamping charges, initial margin money charges, cheque bounce charges and overdue interest, which are said to be wrong and illegal, as the complainant never agreed to pay the above said charges. It is further averred that the Ops are threatening the complainant and tried number of times to take the possession of the car of the complainant forcibly. It is further averred that nothing is due towards the complainant, as such, has prayed that the Ops be directed to issue no due certificate to the complainant and to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
3. In reply of the complaint filed by the Ops, it has been admitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question after raising a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the OPs on 8.12.2012 and at the time of obtaining the loan, it was agreed that the complainant will repay the loan amount by paying instalment of Rs.11,360/- each in 47 instalments. But, the complainant failed to deposit/pay regular instalments, as such the Ops have rightly demanded an amount of Rs.57,762/- on account of overdue/late payment/cheque bounce charges etc. Any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of statement of accounts, Ex.C-2 copy of registration certificate, Ex.C-3 copy of power of attorney, Ex.C-4 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of loan application form, Ex.OP-3 copy of loan agreement, Ex.OP-4 copy of accounts statement, Ex.OP-5 copy of pre payment/outstanding detail, Ex.OP-6 copy of identity card of Hardeep Singh and closed evidence.
5. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.
6. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had obtained a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- in the year 2012 for purchase of a Scala Renault car bearing registration number PB-13-AH-7295 which was repayable in 47 equal monthly instalments of Rs.11,360/- each starting from the month of January, 2013. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has already paid all the instalments of the loan to the OPs.
7. In the present case, the dispute between the parties is that despite the fact the complainant has already paid the loan amount along with interest in the instalments, but the OPs are still claiming an amount of Rs.57,762/- from the complainant on account of overdue/late payment charges, cheque bouncing charges etc., whereas the case of the complainant is that no cheque was ever bounced. Now, the question which arises for determination before us is whether the amount of Rs.57,762/- is payable by the complainant or not to the Ops as demanded.
8. We have perused the statement of accounts Ex.C-1 produced by the complainant on record and found that the OPs have debited overdue interest and cheque bouncing charges on various occasion and even on 5.4.2013, the Ops have debited Rs.562/- twice as is evident from the copy of statement of account Ex.C-1 on record. There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they charged again and again the cheque bouncing charges. Further the Ops have not produced on record even a single cheque showing that the same was bounced by the bank due to insufficient funds or due to any other reason. The Ops have produced on record their own statement of account, but they have not produced on record the copy of statement of their banker i.e. the bank statement, where the OPs used to deposit the cheque nor the Ops have produced any copy of memo showing bouncing of the cheques due to insufficient funds or due to some other reason. Further we have also perused the copy of loan account statement dated 18.2.2017 Ex.OP-5, whereby the Ops have shown recoverable amount i.e. Rs.1000/- as legal charges, cheque bouncing chares Rs.3872/-, collection charges Rs.4200/-, service fee Rs.388/- and LPP amount Rs.61,966/-. After going through the same we failed to understand how the amount so charged in the statement, Ex.OP-5 is recoverable from the complainant, more so when the Ops have produced no cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show that the same are legally chargeable from the complainant. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the amount on account of legal charges, cheque bouncing charges, service fee, collection charges are not recoverable. At the most, we feel that the Ops can charge only the simple interest as agreed upon between the parties on the over due amount, if there is any delay in the repayment of the loan amount by providing the complainant complete details thereof.
9. With these observations, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Ops to calculate the amount of interest due against the complainant by charging simple interest rate, if there was any delay in the repayment of the loan amount and send a notice to the complainant to deposit the same and after deposit of the amount by the complainant with the Ops, the Ops shall issue no due certificate immediately to the complainant against the loan account of the complainant. We further direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of compensation for mental tension and harassment and further an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.
10. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
May 15, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
