Case of filing : 20/01/2021

Date of Judgement : 22/11/2023.

Shri Subir Kumar Dass, Hon’ble Member

The complainant, who is proprietor of M/s. Deep Enterprise carried on business of medical  equipment, which is the only source of his income to sustain himself and his family members, approached for loan for expansion of business to  OP and accordingly loan of Rs.3,00,000/- was sanctioned on 27/01/2019 by the OP vide Loan A/c. No.4100102410713 and on deducting processing fee of Rs.10,967/-, of which the complainant was not aware beforehand, the remaining amount of Rs.2,89,033/- was credited into the A/c of Deep Enterprise on the condition of repayment in 48 monthly installments of EMI of Rs.11,201/-.  Further to it the OP purchased one Insurance Policy of HDFC Credit Protection Plus for Rs.50,000/- at single annual premium of Rs.1750/- in the name of the complainant, allegedly without the knowledge and consent of the complainant.  Later the said insurance policy was cancelled on the request of the complainant and the amount of Rs.50,000/- was adjusted in the account of the complainant and accordingly loan amount got adjusted.  The OP also dropped cheques signed by the complainant, which were kept with them, in the inoperative current account of the complainant and thereby raised statement of account of cheques bounce charges, penal charges and overdue charges though the information of stoppage of payment of EMI through ECS from the current account registered with the OP and about the opening of new account for payment of EMIs was duly communicated to the OP.  Thereafter the OP served upon notice issued by their advocate on 18/11/2020 asking for payment of an amount of Rs.2,83,652/- within 7 days.

Since the OP did not respond to the call of the complainant on several occasions, with the request to recall the due of Rs.66,467/-, the complainant lodged this complaint with the prayer for an order directing the OP to recall the sum of Rs.66,467/- which was unjustifiably credited in the loan account of the complainant along with the compensation and cost of litigation.

The OP contested the case by filing written version wherein the principal contents are that the sanction of loan was for commercial purpose hence the complainant is not a consumer and that there was no deficiency in service from and on behalf of the OP.

POINTS TO BE DECIDED

Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief(s).

DISCUSIONS AND FINDINGS

In course of the proceedings, complainant filed evidence and BNA along with advancing verbal argument. The OP, in addition to the written version, filed BNA and advanced verbal argument.

We have applied our mind and meticulously gone through the materials on records.

The complainant in support of his case filed copies of number of communications sent and received through e-mails to/from OP along with copy of advocate’s letter sent, statement of account received from OP wherein it shows that as on 14/12/2020 net receivable from complainant is Rs.96,444/- etc.  The OP submitted statement of account, copy of loan application form, copy of loan agreement, copy of consent letter for insurance etc..

By going through the records, it is observed that complainant with the intent to expand his business approached the OP for loan. Since the loan was taken for expansion of business, the issue is of commercial nature beyond doubt.

We find that the business in which the complainant is engaged is sole livelihood of him and his family, thus though the service is of commercial nature, in terms of explanation (a) to Section 2(7) of C.P.Act-2019, the complainant very much qualified to be considered as consumer as he utilized the service/product exclusively for purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.

Now, we are proceeding with the merit of the case.

By going through the copy of loan application form, we find that the complainant has signed the application wherein the following words are written :

“I/We confirm and agree that by signing this application form, I/We am/are deemed to have accepted, read, understood and agreed to be bound by the terms including  (amendments thereof) governing the loan/facility”.

Further by going through the copy of loan agreement which duly bears signature of the complainant, we observe that the complainant was well aware of the fact that processing fees, document processing charges, bounce charges, penal interest, upfront interest etc. were very much specifically mentioned in the said loan agreement.  It is also noted that total amount of loan is recorded in the said loan agreement as Rs.3,55,500/-.  Thus the complainant’s plea that imposition of charges on different heads including processing fee was not known to him, fails to pass through the test of authenticity and correctness by document duly signed by him and thereby a denial of the fact and record incorporated in the said document by the complainant cannot be accepted.

Thus it is evident that the complainant has not come to this commission with clean hands and it is also proved that he has deliberately concealed material fact by way of not furnishing the copy of loan agreement which was handed over to him by the OP on 25/01/2019 as reflected in the vernacular confirmation letter issued to the OP by the complainant. Thus we find no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

In view of above, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed on merit with cost.

Hence it is

                             ORDERED

That CC/47/2021 is dismissed on contest with cost of Rs.2,000/- upon the complainant which shall be paid into the Legal Aid Account of this Commission within 45 days from the date of this order.

Copy to be delivered upon parties free of cost.

As dictated and corrected

         Member