Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/197/2019

Vinod Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

AU Small Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sudhie Sehgal

19 Apr 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    197 of 2019.

                                                                   Date of institution: 23.05.2019.

                                                                   Date of decision: 19.04.2022

 

Vinod Kumar Proprietor of M/s Sharma Cement and Shuttering Store, village Kharindwa, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. A.U. Small Finance Bank Limited Railway Road, Kurukshetra, through its authorized signatory.
2. A.U. Small Finance Bank Limited, Registered Office 19-A, Dhuleshwar Garden Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan), through its Managing Director.

 

                                                                                      ...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Ashwani Kumar Goel, Advocate for the OPs.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “Act”).

2.                Going through the contents of the complaint, supportive documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 attached with it, written statement, supportive documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 attached with it, brief facts of the complaint are, the complainant is proprietor of M/s Sharma Cement and Shuttering Store and in the month of January 2019 official of the OPs namely Surinder Kumar approached the complainant and adduced that the OP gives loan on moderate rates and the loan can be taken on easy terms and conditions. He further stated that a current account is to be opened with the OP and demanded five blank cheques and the property is to be shown as security purposes. He also stated that the insurance formalities are to be completed at their own level and the premium of the insurance was to be given every year. The Ops became ready to give loan and the complainant completed the formalities for the same. On 28.01.2019, OP No.1 told that loan of Rs.9,60,000/- has been sanctioned to the complainant, but no amount was credited to the account of the complainant. The Ops also get the property/shop of the complainant insured and deducted the premium of Rs.45,470/- collectively. The Ops also charged Rs.46000/- as file charges. The complainant demanded his sanction letter, but the sanction letter was not given to him. Surprisingly on 3.4.2019 an amount of Rs.15032/- was deducted from his account, after depositing his cheques for the first installment of the loan, though no loan was sanctioned or disbursed to the complainant. On 12.4.2019, again another amount of Rs.15,500/- was also deduced from the account of the complainant and on the same day an amount of Rs.8,88,176/- was credited to the account of the complainant and thus, before disbursing the loan amount, two installments were deducted from the account of the complainant arbitrarily. They have sanctioned the loan of Rs.9,60,000/-, but have disbursed the amount of Rs.8,88,176/- only and that too after four months and also two installments were deducted wrongly. The insurance premium of the shop was also deducted for five years. The complainant demanded the copy of loan statement, copy of current account and three cheques were handed over to the Ops as security for issuing the loan, but nothing was done and the Ops again presented the third cheque on 03.05.2019, which was bounced and charges of Rs.354/- were deducted from the account of the complainant. The complainant requested the Ops to deposit the balance amount as sanctioned by them and refund two installments totaling to Rs.30532/- and also demanded the remaining three blank cheques, but nothing has been done, which amounts to negligence and deficiency in services on the part of the OPs, causing him mental agony, harassment and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs before this Commission.

3.                On receipt of notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their written statement, disputing the claim of the complainant. It has been submitted that the loan has been sanctioned to the complainant on 31.1.2019, which clearly mentioned in the statement of account of the complainant. On perusal of statement of account, it clearly reveals that on 31.1.2019, Rs.9,60,000/- was credited in the account of the complainant and deduction made from the account of the complainant was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement, duly signed by the complainant. The arbitration proceedings shall be held in Mumbai. As per clause 2.7 of the Agreement, it is the duty of the borrower to pay the file/service charges/processing fees of the loan.

 All other averments made in the complaint have been denied specifically and it was submitted that the present complaint may kindly be dismissed.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file as well carefully.

5.                Shri Sudhir Sehgal, counsel for the complainant, in the course of arguments, in material respect, reiterated to the version made into the complaint and apprised the Commission about evidence adduced on record by the complainant.

6.                Shri A.K. Goel, counsel for the OPs, in the course of his arguments, also reiterated to the version made into the written statement and also apprised the Commission about evidence adduced on record by the OPs. He further argued that the blank signed cheques were retained by the OPs as a security and once the loan was cleared by the complainant, same were handed over to the complainant. He further argued that every deduction was made in the loan account of the complainant as per term and conditions of the loan agreement, which were duly detailed in loan document. The two installments of Rs.15,032/- were deducted as per installment chart prepared before disbursing the loan amount to the complainant and delay in disbursement of loan amount was due to own negligence of complainant by not supplying the requisite documents in time and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

7.                Complainant firstly contended that the OPs have not handed over to him copy of loan statement, copy of current account. The complainant himself produced on the record, copy of account statement, maintained with Punjab National Bank, as Ex.C11, although, this statement is not legible. The OPs have produced legible copy of loan statement of complainant, as Mark 8, on the case file, so in view of above facts, this contention of complainant that OPs have not given him copy of current account /loan statement, has no force, because the current account statement was produced by the complainant himself as Ex.C11 and now, loan account statement of his firm namely M/s Sharma Cement and Shuttering Store commencing from 01.01.2019 to 01.03.2022, has been produced by the OPs on the case file.

8.                Complainant further contended that the OPs have not handed over to him three blank signed security cheques, but this Commission found this contention of the complainant, not plausible, because, generally at the time of disbursing the loan, every bank/finance company retained blank cheque(s), from the concerned customer, as a token of security of loan amount, and once the loan account is cleared successfully, then those cheque(s), retained by it, are returned to the customer along with N.O.C. regarding clearance of said loan amount.  

9.                The complainant further alleged that the OPs have wrongly and illegally charged Rs.36,000/- as file charges, Rs.72000/- less amount credit in his account. In this regard, the OPs relied upon document Mark-1 and contended that no amount was illegally deducted by the OPs as every amount was deducted/charged, as per Agreement Ex.R-1. Perusal of document Mark-1 shows, every amount, charged/deducted by the OPs, from the complainant, has been properly bifurcated column-wise. In this document Mark-1, it has been specifically mentioned Rs.9,60,000/- disbursed on 31.01.2019; Rs.22656/- was deducted as PF Charge; Rs.1770/- as Valuation Charge; Rs.2950/- as Legal Charge; Rs.885/- RCU Charge; Rs.45471/- as FGLI Charge and Rs.1812/- as Chola Charge. Counsel for the OPs further drawn attention of this Commission towards document Mark-4, wherein, the abovementioned deducted amount was shown detail-wise i.e. Rs.22656/- deducted on 31.01.2019 as Processing Fees MSME Business Funding; Rs.1770/- was deducted on 31.01.2019 as Valuation Charges; Rs.Rs.2950/- deducted on 31.01.2019 as Legal and Incidental Fees; Rs.885/- on 31.01.2019 as RCU Charges; Rs.45471/- on 31.01.2019 as Future General Life Ins. Loan Suraksha (M) and Rs.1812/- on 31.01.2019 as Chola MS Fire Insurance. To further cement his version, the OPs produced on the case file copy of Group Policy of Rs.45,470.59 of Future General Loan Suraksha for five years tenure, as Mark-2. The OPs further produced on the case file copy of Chola MS Fire Insurance for one year i.e. commencing from 31.1.2019 to 30.01.2021, as Mark-3. The OPs also produced on the case file copy of bank statement/loan statement of complainant as Mark-4, showing full details of loan account. So, this contention of the complainant that the OPs have illegally charged/deducted the amount from his loan account, has no force, because, the OPs had bifurcated each and every amount charged/deducted by it, from the complainant while producing documents Mark-1 to Mark-4 respectively, wherein, every deducted amount was shown details-wise.

10.              The complainant further alleged that the OPs have deducted Rs.15,032/- on 03.4.2019 and Rs.15,500/- on 12.04.2019, before disbursing the loan amount to his account, but this allegations of the complainant, has no force, because, the OPs had already prepared installments chart of loan of complainant, which will be completed in 144 installments, as shown in document Mark-4, and as per that schedule, first and second installment of Rs.15,032/- were to be deducted on 05.02.2019 and 05.04.2019 respectively and the OPs charged/deducted the same, as per its schedule.

11.              Now coming to the last allegation of the complainant that the OPs sanctioned his loan of Rs.9,60,000/-, but disbursed him Rs.8,88,176/- after four months, as shown in loan account statement. In this regard, the OPs contended that since the complainant had not submitted the requisite documents and completed the requisite formalities, therefore, the sanctioned loan amount was disbursed after four months to him. It is not the case of the complainant that he had ever submitted the requisite documents as well as completed the requisite formalities with the OPs to disburse him loan amount. Since the complainant leveled this allegation on the OPs, therefore, to prove his this allegation, burden was upon the complainant, but he failed to do so. So, this allegation of the complainant is not believable, in the absence of any documentary proof. So, in this way, considering the totality of the allegations of the complainant and material brought on the record, by the complainant himself, there is not an iota of cogent and convincing evidence, on the record, to substantiate the allegations of the complainant, rather, from the material on record, the case of the complainant appears to be bundle of lies. The complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Complaint is devoid on merits and is liable to be dismissed.

12.              Hence, due to the reasons stated hereinbefore, complaint is, dismissed, it being devoid on merits, leaving the parties to bear their own costs of litigations. Certified copy of this order, be supplied to the parties concerned, as per rules, and file be consigned to the records, after due compliance.

Dated: 19.04.2022.

    

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    (Member).                                     DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.