Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/783/2022

OMVIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK - Opp.Party(s)

ATUL KAUSHIK ADVOCATE

30 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/783/2022
Date of Institution	:	2/9/2022
Date of Decision	:	30/10/2024

 

 

Omvir Singh S/o Baljit Singh, Resident of House No.1541, Village Khera Faida, Nizampur, Sector 47, Chandigarh.

 

...COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

 

1. AU Small Finance Bank Ltd., SCO No.45-46, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through its Manager Sandeep Singh.

 

2. AU Small Finance Bank Ltd., SCO No.23-24, Ground floor, Ambala Zirakpur Highway, District Mohali 140603 through its Manager Sh.Havinder.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Atul Kaushik, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for OPs.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had purchased one Maruti Swift Car from Modern Automobiles, Phase I, Chandigarh and the same was being financed with the OPs. The total cost of the vehicle i.e. Maruti Swift Car is Rs.6,70,000/- out of which Rs.1,70,000/- was paid by the complainant as down payment and Rs.4,70,000/- was being financed by the Ops and Rs.30,000/- was given as discount to the complainant by the agency. Loan of Rs.4,70,000/- was disbursed with monthly equated installments and the same is fixed at Rs.11,181/- per month as EMIs (Ex.C-1 & C-2). The loan was being paid by the complainant regularly and the same was struck during the course of Covid 19, while the three installments of the loan account were defaulted by the complainant at that point of time. Thereafter a moratorium period was extended by three months by the OPs. In the month of July, 2022 complainant received a telephone call from the person namely Manpreet who requested the complainant to come in the bank's branch in Sector 8, Chandigarh immediately, with the persuasion of said Manpreet, the complainant reached the office of OP No.1 alongwith his wife under the influence of good faith, the OP got the signatures of the complainant on some papers quoting therein the reason that the loan would be extended for one more year. The complainant came under this impression and signed the documents in a good faith. Since the complainant is not so much educated and is Matric pass only, therefore, whole of the scenario does not read by the complainant. The officials of the OPs removed the car of the complainant in garb of the consent letter which was got signed by them in the name of extension of time of loan account. Thereafter the officials of OPs started talking with the complainant with regard to the calculation of loan account and started saying if the non-payment of EMI was of six months only then their case for extension of loan would be considered, now it is difficult for them to extend the time limit of vehicle loan but they were taking the possession of the vehicle in question pertaining to the complainant in this noble way. The officials of the OPs started demanding a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- for release the vehicle in question. The complainant is able to collect the money of Rs.1,20,000/- as stated by them and visited their office. At that point of time, the officials of the OPs refused to accede their request and flatly refused to deposit the amount and directed the complainant to repay whole of the amount. On 22.7.2022, the Manager of OP No.2 threatened the complainant and directed the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- towards the loan account thereafter they will pursue the case for release of vehicle. When the complainant made requests to the OPs that he wants the settlement of the vehicle loan account and for the same, he managed the consumer who wanted to purchase the vehicle in question the OPs flatly refused to do the same. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that the complainant has made defaults in timely repayment of loan installments on various occasions, the answering opposite parties had issued a number of reminders as well as legal notices to the complainant to clear the outstanding amount of loan. Thereafter complainant stopped making repayment of installments, the complainant has breached the loan agreement by committing defaults in timely repayment of loan installments. Though on various occasion, the complainant was reminded to clear the outstanding dues but complainant did not bother to rectify his default, thereafter the answering opposite parties as per terms of said agreement terminated loan agreement by recalling the loan balance with accrued charges and enforced their security created under the Loan Agreement with further liberty to sell the same. Copies of Legal Notices dated 03.05.2021 and 03.09.2021 issued to the complainant are annexed as Annexure OP-3 (Colly). 15.07.2022is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE OP-5. Thereafter the answering OPs had issued a demand letter dated 21.07.2022 requested the complainant to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.3,83,762/- within 7 working days otherwise the answering OPs have to sale the vehicle, however the complainant did not bother to pay the loan amount and having no other option the answering opposite parties had prepared sale recommendation of hypothecated asset/vehicle on dated 29.09.2022 and as per Article 13.21 (iv) of loan agreement, wherein it has clearly been mentioned that in the event of default the Lender shall have right to repossess, sell or otherwise dispose off/deploy the assets had sold the vehicle on dated 29.09.2022 for amounting to Rs.3,40,000/- sale recommendation of hypothecated asset/vehicle prepared on dated 29.09.2022. Copy of Demand/Information letter dated 21.07.2022 is annexed as Annexure OP-6. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by the OPs.
3.     No rejoinder was filed by the complainant.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The main grievance of the complainant is that inspite of paying regular EMI’s towards the loan vehicle as sanctioned by the OP’s, they have taken forceful possession of the vehicle and desired restoration of vehicle and is willing to pay the remaining EMI’s of the loan account.
7.     On perusal of the reply of the OP’s, it is observed that they have sold the vehicle of complainant and the sold amount has been adjusted against the loan account statement of the complainant.
8.     We have also perused the Ex.C-2, which is a loan statement and is placed at page No.17 of the case file. On perusal of page No.18 & 19 of the case file (loan statement issued by the OPs) it is observed that there are many gross errors. On page No.18 & 19, against installment No.17, 19, 20, 35 the last payment dates are mentioned as 01.01.1800, 01.01.1950, 01.01.1950 and 01.01.1950, respectively. We fail to understand as the OP’s themselves have mentioned the loan sanctioned date as 15.11.2018, then how the above dates contain the year as 1800 & 1950. The statement has been issued in a very casual manner. Hence, the OPs are deficient in providing the service on this account. The corona lockdown was declared on 24.03.2020. The Govt. of India & Financial institutions issued guidelines for carrying forward of EMI firstly for 3 months and later extended the same facility for another 3 months. But on perusal of the statement of loan account (Ex.C-2) the said benefit was only provided for a period of 2 months only & not for 6 months. Hence, the OPs hare deficient in provided service to the complainant on this account as well.
9.     We have perused Annexure OP-6 which is a letter having been sent by OPs to the complainant to pay the balance amount of loan, failing which the vehicle shall be auctioned. The OPs have not adduced any documentary evidence by way of any receipt of postal agencies having the letter been sent & delivered to the complainant. Hence, we are of the concerted view, the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice and is also deficient in providing service to the complainant.
10.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are, jointly & severally, directed as under:-

1. to issue fresh statement of loan account after giving benefit of the moratorium period as announced during corona lockdown & corona pandemic.
2. to pay an amount of ₹50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11.     This order be complied with by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, till realization, apart from compliance of direction Sr. No.(i) & (iii).
12.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

30/10/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member