IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
C C No. 226/2018 (filed on 25-10-2018)
Petitioner : Remya V.S.
W/o. Arun A Sadananthan,
Arackamattathil House,
Near Vetinary Hospital,
Kottayam South P.O.
Kodimatha, Kottayam – 686013.
(Adv. Akash K.R.)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) The Branch Manager,
Bajaj Finance Ltd.
Nagampadom P.O.
Kottayam – 686 006.
2) The Managing Director.
Bajaj Finance Ltd.
4th Floor, Survey 208/1-B,
Women Nagar, Pune – 411014.
(For op1 and 2 Adv. Ananthakrishnan A. Kartha)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The brief facts as set out in the Complaint are that the Complainant took
a personal loan from the Opposite parties Bank for an amount of Rs.1,19,000/- on 13-12-2017 and the first opposite party disbursed an amount of Rs.1,08,401/- to the complainant The complainant has to pay back the loan in equal EMI’s of Rs.4918 /- payable before the 5th of every month. The complainant on 2-2-2018, 2-3-2018 and 3-4-2018 remitted her Emi’s for respective months. The Complainant averred that after paying her monthly installments she realized that the opposite parties are charging exorbitant interests and other hidden charges on her and she was forced to close the personal loan. In April 2018 complainant approached the first opposite party to close the loan and he opposite party demanded an amount of Rs.1,19,804 from her to close the loan and on 26-4- 2018
the complainant remitted an amount of 1,19,804 to the first opposite party vide cheque no. 577037 of Dhanalakhsmi Bank. On closing of the loan account the first opposite party collected from her an amount of Rs.5305/- as foreclosure charges against the protest of the complainant. The Complainant averred that he had requested the Bank to give a statement of the loan account and no objection certificate to which the opposite parties demanded for Rs.4,918/- under no head from the complainant so as to issue the no objection certificate. Thus before issuing the no objection certificate the opposite parties on 2-5-2018 extorted Rs.4,918/- from the complainant. The no objection certificate dated 30-04-2018 issued to the complainant is thus handed over to the complainant only on 2-5-018 after paying Rs.4,918/-. Later when the complainant informed them of approaching the court for illegal extortion the opposite parties on 30-5-2018 returned Rs.4,918/-.
It is averred in the complaint that on perusing the loan account statement dated 30-5-2018 the complainant learned that opposite parties have collected an amount of Rs.1,912as broken period interest, s. 100 as stamp duty disb deduct, Rs.844/- as Max Bupa Health Insurance due, Rs.4164 as process fees, and 3103 as future group due. Altogether the opposite parties have collected an amount of Rs.10,599/- illegally from the complainant on 13-12-2017. The permission of the complainant is not sought for deducting those amounts from the total loan amount of Rs.1,19,000/- and against the law and in violation of the norms of the RBI. According to the complainant the aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounts to imperfection, shortcoming and inadequacy in the quality and nature of service is to be maintained by the opposite parties and amounts to deficiency in service.
It is pleaded by the Complainant that opposite parties are liable to return Rs.10,599/- withheld from him at the time of disbursing the loan along with Rs.5309 collected from him as foreclosure charges. Hence the complaint is filed seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.15,904/-, with 12% interest, Rs.25000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/as litigation cost.
The opposite parties filed their written version stating that the complaint sis not maintainable. It is submitted in the version that complainant is bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the loan agreement. The complainant availed a personal loan vide account no. 451PST60149824 for an amount of Rs.1,19000/-The monthly EMI to be paid was Rs.4918 for a contract period of 36 months. That the complainant however, has foreclosed the loan on 23rd April 2018 for an
amount of Rs.119804/-.The amount which got credited / sanctioned in the account of the complainant was Rs.10804/-.An amount of Rs.1912 as broken period interest, Rs.3102 for Future Group , Rs.844 for Max Bhupa, Rs.4641 as processing fees and Rs.100 as stamp duty has been deducted from the loan amount. It is averred in the version that the complainant signed the loan term sheet as Read and understood and placed her signature which proves that the complainant was well aware about the incidental charges at the time of availing the loan. An Amount of Rs.5305 is being collected as foreclosure charges which is as per the terms and conditions of the loan term sheet and the complainant was well aware about the foreclosure charges.
It is further pleaded by the Opposite Party that, Rs.4918/- was deducted due to an inadvertent technical error and the same has been immediately refunded back to the complainant on 30-5-2018. As the complainant has closed the loan account by paying all EMI’s on time, opposite parties cannot be held liable and the complainant has no cause of action against the opposite parties. It is further submitted in the version that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious and liable to be dismissed with direction to pay the outstanding amount along with late payment charges.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exhibits
A1 to A5 were marked. Jincy John who is the legal manager of the second opposite party is examined as Dw1 from the side of the opposite parties and exhibit B1 and B2 were marked .Exhibit A6 was marked through the Dw1.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from
side of the opposite parties?
- If so what are the reliefs?
Point number 1 to 3
For the sake of convenience we would like to consider the point no1 to 3
together.
There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant had availed a personal loan vide account no. 451PST60149824 for an amount of Rs.1,19000/- from the first opposite party on 13-12-2017. It is not disputed by the parties that the loan would be repaid in equal monthly EMI of Rs.4918 for a contract period of 36 months. The opposite parties contended that the disputes pertaining to accounts is not maintainable before the consumer disputes redressal fora. Opposite parties relied the decision of apex commissions in Ram Deshiahara vs Magma Leasing Ltd (III (2006) CPJ247(NC) and Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd Vs Himanshu.S. Thumar (II (2005)CPJ 491. Here in case in hand the specific case of the complainant that the opposite parties has committed deficiency in service by illegally deducting amounts from her loan account. The complaint is not for the settlement of any account or transactions .Hence we are of the opinion that the complaint is maintainable.
Exhibit A6 clearly showed that complainant had availed personal loan for an amount of Rs.119,000/- from the opposite parties Bank on 2-3-2018. Admittedly opposite parties disbursed an amount of Rs.10804/- to the complainant after deducting Rs.1912 as broken period interest, Rs.3102 for Future Group , Rs.844 for Max Bhupa , Rs.4641 as processing fees and Rs.100 as stamp duty from the sanctioned loan amount. On 23-4-2018 the complainant closed the loan account by paying Rs.119, 804/- with the opposite parties vide cheque no. 577037 of Dhanlakshmi Bank. It is proved by Exhibit A1 that an amount of Rs.5,305.52 has been charged by the opposite parties as foreclosure charges from the complainant and Rs.2093 as interest. According to the complainant the collection of foreclosure charges is illegal. Counsel for the complainant relied on the decision of Calcutta High court in Devendra Surana vs State Bank of Baroda & ors decided on December 2018 in W.P. No, 5521 (w) of 2017. In that decision the it was held by the Hon’ble High Court that “ In the facts of the present case, the petitioner having forclosed the credit facilities enjoyed by the petitioner from the respondent no.1 in October 2016, such fore closure is governed by the circular dated May 7, 2014 issued by the Reserve Bank of India. With effect from May 7, 2014 therefore, the respondent no.1 is not entitled to charge any foreclosure charges/prepayment penalties on floating rate term loan to individual borrower such as the petitioner”. |On perusal of Exhibit B2 loan agreement we can see that the rate of interest flat per annum was 16.25 %. It is further stated in B2 loan agreement that foreclosure charge was 4% of out standing loan amount on the date of such full prepayment / foreclosure plus applicable taxes. Thus the complainant had availed the loan from the opposite parties on flat rate interest and greed to pay the foreclosure charges for the out standing loan amount. Hence we are of the opinion that there was no illegality from the side of the opposite parties in charging foreclosure charges from the complainant.
Another deductions which were made from the complainant at the time of sanctioning the loan amount was Rs.3102 for Future Group and Rs.844 for Max Bhupa. Dw1 who is the legal manager of the opposite parties would depose before the commission that these amounts were deducted for availing insurance policy and health insurance policy in the name of the complainant. So that, the insurance companies may issue policies.
However, the opposite parties produced Exhibit B1 loan account statement and B2 loan agreement before this Commission. These documents however, nowhere clearly depicts that the Insurance Companies have actually issued an insurance policy to the same effect. The opposite parties Bank has submitted no proof which depicts or clarifies that any such details of the complainant were actually sent to the Insurance Company or any policies were actually issued in the name of the complainant. Therefore, when it was not established that whether the policies were actually issued or not so as, why was the premiums actually charged could not be made clear. Also, it could not be clarified as to for how much amount was the insurance done, for how much time was the policy issued, on what terms and how much was the premium amount fixed at? Also it could not be clarified by the bank that as to when and how did they make to the insurance company, which they had charged from the account of the complainant. It is admitted by the opposite party bank that Rs.100/- was charged as stamp duty. On perusal of Exhibit B2 we can see that only a revenue stamp worth Rs.1 is affixed in it. Dw1 did not give any explanation for the same. We express our anguish about the practices of the non-banking financial companies by which they charge more money from the laymen who approached them in dire need of money. In the view of this commission, these amounts were unnecessarily charged from the account of the complainant for services of the opposite party Bank.
As far as the question of the deduction of EMI amount after foreclosure of the loan. Admittedly the loan was foreclosed on 23-4-2018 by paying Rs.119,000/- to the first opposite party. Thereafter Exhibit A2 no objection certificate dated 30-4-2018 was issued to the complainant. It is admitted by Dw1 that on 2-5-2018 an amount of Rs.4918 has been deducted by the opposite parties as equated monthly installments and the same was returned on 30-5-2018. Dw1 further deposed before the commission that 10 days will take to generate the no objection certificate after foreclosure of the loan. But in version it is stated by the opposite parties that, Rs. 4918/- was deducted due to an inadvertent technical error. On perusal of exhibit A2 we can see that the same was prepared on 30-4-2018 ie within 7 days from the date of foreclosure . It is pertinent to note that the EMI has been deducted by the opposite parties on 2-5-2018 ie is after generating Exhibit A2 and the said amount was refunded to the complainant only on the last of that month. This itself proves that the manner in which the opposite parties rendered the service to the complainant. The said amount of Rs.4,918/- of EMI was withheld by the opposite party for one month, even then they have not paid any interest for the same for the said period of one month. Therefore we are of the opinion that imperfection, shortcoming and inadequacy in the quality and nature of service committed by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. No doubt the complainant had suffered much suffering and loss due to the deficient act of the opposite parties for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate for the same.
Therefore, the complaint is partially allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4047/- ie. the amount deducted from the loan amount of the complainant as stamp duty and for the premiums of insurances with 6 % interest from 13-12-2017 till the date of realization.
Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties.
Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2500/- as cost of this litigation.
Order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of this order failing which the compensation amount will carry future interest of 6% from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 24th day of September, 2021.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Witness from the side of opposite party
Dw1 – Jancy John
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 - Receipt dtd.23-04-18 issued by 1st opposite party
A2 – No objection certificate dtd.30-04-18 by 2nd opposite party
A3 – Copy of letter dtd.05-06-18 by petitioner to 1st opposite party
A4 – Postal receipt
A5 –Postal acknowledgement card
A6 –Account statement of complainant from 31-05-10 to 31-05-18 by
opposite party
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Copy of statement of account issued by opposite party
B2 – Copy of loan agreement
By Order
Senior Superintendent
