BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI
BEFORE : THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI MEMBER
F.A.NO.525/2012
(Against the order in CC.No.391/2010, dated 26.05.2011 on the file of DCDRF, Coimbatore)
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015
1.Shriram Chits T.N.(P) Limited,
Rep.by its Manager,
998-A, Trichy Road,
Olumpus,
Ramanathapuram,
Coimbatore.
2.Shriram City Union Finance Ltd,
Rep.by Senior Manager, M/s.K.V.Ananthakrishnan
416C, NSR Road, Saibaba Colony, Counsel for Appellants/Opp.parties
Coimbatore 641 011.
3.Shriram City Union Finance Ltd,
Rep.by Managing Director,
Old No.123, New No.255,
Angappa Naicken Street,
Chennai.
-vs-
1.B.Sujatha,
W/o.Senthilkumar
2. Senthilkumar, Respondent / Complainant
2/274, Anna Nagar, Served called absent.
Malumichampatty,
Coimbatore.
The Respondent is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellants / opposite parties filed this appeal praying for to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.391/2010, dated 26.05.2011.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 09.01.2015, upon hearing the arguments on the side of the appellants, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.
A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
The opposite parties are the appellants.
The complainants are the husband and wife and the 1st complainant deposited Rs.3,00,000/- by way of Debenture certificate in the opposite party’s chit and obtained trade loan from the opposite parties by pledging Debenture Certificate and after deducting Rs.6000/- towards processing fees Rs2,94,000/- was issued by way of cheque and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.7200/- every month towards interest for the loan obtained and paid the interest till November 2009 in which month the Debenture certificate become matured on 15.11.2009. Accordingly upto October 2009 and for 15 days for November 2009 interest was paid even though interest is payable upto 10th of every month they are forced to pay interest for 5 days in excess of Rs.1200/- even after payment of entire loan the 1st opposite party refused to issued receipts and issued only a temporary receipt for Rs.3,00,236/- and the request for excess interest amount of Rs.1200/- were not refunded. But the 2nd opposite party sent a letter date 24.05.2010 demanding a sum of Rs.25,731/- as outstanding dues for the trade loan obtained and the 1st opposite party refused to issue loan closure letter and thereby after issuing a legal notice a consumer complaint came to be filed seeking reliefs.
3. The opposite parties 1 to 3 denied the allegations except to admit the transactions and contended that for the trade loan processing fee of Rs.6000/- is fixed was accepted by the complainant and the interest of Rs.7200/- to be paid EMI for 6 months from August onwards as per the terms and the same was collected and the last 2EMIs were adjusted towards amount deposited as lien as per the instructions of the complainant and not charged in excess and thereby the complaint is to be dismissed.
4. The District Forum after an enquiry on the basis of both sides materials allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund the excess interest of Rs.1200/- and to refund Rs.6000/- as processing fee collected and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.1000/- as costs.
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order the opposite parties have filed this appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint without considering the terms and conditions of the loan advance and the process fee of Rs.6000/- was admitted to be paid by the complainant and since they acted as per the terms and conditions of the Contract Act and wrongly presumed that failure of giving reply to the notice as admission and thereby this appeal is to be allowed.
6. We have heard both sides arguments and perused the materials in this regard. It is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant availed trade loan by way of deposit of Debenture Certificate for Rs.3,00,000/- and the loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- was given after deducting a sum of Rs.6000/- as processing fee as per Ex.A2 and it is also found that the complainant has to pay interest of Rs.7200/- as monthly installments towards loan due and the complainant alleged that he has to pay the interest after upto 10th November 2009 and they have collected interest upto 15th November 2009 on which date the debenture certificate due for maturity and thereby 5 days interest in excess was collected and refused to give no due certificate. While considering the contentions of the appellants that the complainant agreed for payment of process of Rs.6000/- and only after that received loan and if he is not willing to pay the processing fee for the loan obtained they ought not have accepted the loan amount and this contention is having force in view of the documents under Ex.A1 and A2 and in Ex.A2 it is mentioned 2% of processing fees Rs.6000/- and no upfront deduction first PDC date 10.08.09 and the cheque for Rs.2,94,000/- was enclosed as per Ex.A1 dated 21.07.09 and the complainant having received the amount and agreed to repay the loan in EMIs as per the terms and only after paying the entire loan dues as per the receipt Ex.A3 on 10.01.2010 for Rs.3,07,200/- now claimed for refund of Rs.6000/- paid for processing fees. Hence when he received the loan amount with terms and conditions for payment of 2% towards processing fees and availed the loan for six months is not expected to claim the refund of process fee at that stage. As far as the excess interest paid for 5 days is concerned as per the document under Ex.A2 the 1st PDC dated mentioned as 10.08.2009 and the complainant paid interest upto 15.11.2009 even though the due payable ends as on 10.11.2009 when pay interest is agreed for upto 10th of every month and this was not denied by the opposite parties and thereby Rs.1200/- collected as excess which would amount to deficiency in service and thereby to that extent alone the complainant’s claim could be considered and in view of the same the District Forum directing the opposite parties to refund the processing fee of Rs.6000/- is liable to be set aside and as far as the other directions of the award is concerned the District Forum directed to refund the excess interest of Rs.1200/- with 18% p.a. from 15.11.2009 till realization and to pay Rs.1000/- as costs are all acceptable one and as far as the compensation of Rs.10,000/- is concerned as the opposite parties were directed only to refund of excess interest amount of Rs.1200/- with 18% interest the compensation can be reduced proportionately and we are of the view that since 18% interest has to be paid for the refund of excess interest of Rs.1200/- it would be justifiable to reduce the compensation from Rs.10000/- to Rs.3000/- only and accordingly we are inclined to allow the appeal to that extent alone.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by modifying the order of the District Forum as follows:
- The order of the District Forum directing to refund the processing fee of Rs.6000/- deducted during the disbursement of trade loan and to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- as compensation for mental agony is hereby set aside.
- The order of the District Forum to refund the excess interest amount of Rs.1200/- collected from the complainant with 18% interest from 15.11.2009 till the date of realization and
- to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- towards costs of the proceedings are all confirmed.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay only a sum of Rs.3000/- alone instead of Rs.10000/- ordered as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant due to deficiency of service.
- The above directions shall be complied within a period of two months from the date of this order.
- No order as to costs in this appeal.
P.BAKIYAVATHI A.K.ANNAMALAI
MEMBER PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
