Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/737

Vijay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Amandeep Singh Adv.

09 Jun 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 737 dated 19.12.2018.                                                        Date of decision: 09.06.2022.

 

Vijay Kumar Setia aged 56 years son of Sh. Prem Chand, Resident of House No.B-3-1260, Street No.1, Near Arore Vansh Dharamshala, Mohalla Bajwa Nagar, Ludhiana-141008, Punjab, India.                                                                                                                                                 ..…Complainant 

•  

1. Axis Bank Ltd., Ground Floor, The Boulevard, The Mall Road, Ludhiana-141001, Punjab, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.
2. Axis Bank Ltd., Head Office, 131, Maker Tower-F, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai-400005.                                                                                                                                            …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection    Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         None.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Gaurav Lekhi, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 21.03.2016, the complainant took a loan of Rs.5,24,000/- from the OPs for purchase of one Maruti Baleno car. At the time of taking the loan, the OPs agreed to charge interest @10.01%. The loan was repayable in 60 installments. The EMIs were to commence from 15.04.2016 to 15.03.2021. At the time of taking the loan, the officials of the OPs made the complainant to sign on blank papers and also obtained 5 blank cheques  from him with security purpose. The complainant has been paying the installments regularly from 15.04.2016 to 15.05.2018. Thereafter, the officials of the OPs offered another loan against the car on interest @11.00% or 12.00% under the same scheme and product and also assured that the both accounts will run with different EMIs. The complainant got ready to avail another loan on the interest @11% or 12%. The signatures of the complainant were again obtained on blank KYC form for sanctioning the second loan. Thereafter, the OPs sanctioned another loan of Rs.7,86,000/- in the month of June 2018. However, the officials of OPs did not send even a single document regarding the said loan nor any pre-payment schedule of the said loan of Rs.7,86,000/- was sent to the complainant. Eventually, on 01.07.2018, the officials of the OPs sought to recover an EMI of Rs.19,110/- from the savings account of the complainant but the ECS attempt was dishonoured. The officials of the OPs took two installments of Rs.19,110/- from the complainant under the threat that the loan would be declared NPA. Thereafter, the complainant enquired about the whole matter and received an envelope on 08.07.2018 in which re-payment schedule of both the accounts was given. The complainant was surprised to know that earlier loan of Rs.5,24,000/-@10.01% was closed on 11.06.2018 without the permission from the complainant and amount of Rs.3,30,486/- was adjusted in the said account of Rs.5,24,000/- by way of transfer without permission of the complainant. In this manner, the OPs played fraud with the complainant by disbursing another loan of Rs.7,86,000/- for 60 months with EMI of Rs.19,110/- each payable from 01.07.2018 to 01.06.2023. The complainant never signed nor accepted the proposal of interest @15.99% over the loan amount. This amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the Ops be directed to charge interest @11% or 12% on the loan amount of Rs.7,86,000/- and the EMIs be also revised accordingly and the earlier account of Rs.5,24,000/- be reopened with applicable rate of interest as 10.01%. The OPs be further made to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant on account of deficiency of service.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. According to the OPs, the complainant had availed of an auto loan facility of Rs.5,24,000/-  vide loan account NoAUR004201789094 dated 21.03.2016 for purchase of Maurti Baleno  car. After paying few installments, the complainant was eligible for top-up loan. On the request of the complainant, a loan amount of Rs.7,86,000/- was disbursed to the complainant under loan account No.UCR004203189223 and out of which Rs.3,30,000/- was adjusted in the first loan account of Rs.5,24,000/- at the time of disbursing the loan of Rs.7,86,000/-. All the requisite documents with regard to rate of interest and re-payment schedule of loan amount were handed over to the complainant. Moreover, it was not a second loan as the first loan was adjusted out of second loan of Rs.7,86,000/-. The complainant was fully aware about the EMI of Rs.19,110/-. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C12 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Rohit Sabherwal, A.R./Manager of the OPs along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R27 and closed the evidence.

5.                In this case, the complainant has not been appearing since 08.02.2022.

6.                We have gone through the record and heard arguments advanced by the counsel for the OPs and proceed to decide the case on merits.

7.                In this case, the grievance of the complainant is that the loan of Rs.7,86,000/- was offered and disbursed to him on interest @11%/12% per annum and the loan amount of Rs.7,86,000/- and Rs.5,24,000/- should run concurrently with different EMIs @10.01% and 11/12% per annum respectively but the OPs have illegally and unjustifiably charged interest @15.99% in respect of loan of Rs.7,86,000/- and the previous loan has also been merged in the second loan. However, the complainant has himself placed on record the document Ex. C5 which is payment schedule of the loan of Rs.7,86,000/- and the rate of interest mentioned therein is 15.99%. Even in the document Ex. C6, the rate of interest is mentioned at 15.99% and the loan is stated to be payable in 60 installments of Rs.19,110/- each. In this regard, further reference can be made to the copy of loan agreement dated 04.06.2018 with acknowledgement form which is signed by the complainant on all page and in the said document, the rate of interest is mentioned as 15.99%. In the schedule attached with the agreement, again the rate of interest is mentioned as 15.99% and the loan is said to be repayable in 60 installments of Rs.19,110/-. Therefore, having himself agreed to pay the interest @15.99% in the agreement which is duly signed by the complainant himself, the complainant cannot now claim that some fraud has been committed with him nor it can be said to be a case of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. 

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:09.06.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Vijay Kumar Setia Vs Axis Bank Ltd.                                      CC/18/737

Present:       None for the complainant.

                   Sh. Gaurav Lekhi, Advocate for the OPs.

 

                    None turned up for the complainant today also. None has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 08.02.2022.

                   The counsel for the OPs has filed application seeking to lead additional evidence in the shape of one affidavit of Sandeep Baweja which is allowed and the document Ex. OP/X is taken on record.

                   Arguments on behalf of the counsel for the OPs heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:09.06.2022.

Gobind Ram.