Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Mrs. Rita Basu Roy Chowdhury, the Complainant, filed this complaint alleging severe harassment at the hands of the OP Financier in connection with a loan being sanctioned behind her back.
The facts of the case, as narrated in the petition of complaint, in brief, are that the Complainant was astonished to get a call from the Recovery Agent of the OP Financier on 12-02-2015, who pressed for making payment of alleged outstanding due stood in her name. Although she feigned total ignorance in this matter, it was of no use. In this regard, it is stated by the Complainant that she once availed of financial assistance from the OP financier. However, she repaid the said loan fully and accordingly, the OP issued necessary ‘No Outstanding Due’ Certificate to her. Subsequently, she never applied for any loan. However, the OPs disbursed the disputed loan behind her back and started realizing EMIs from her account without any intimation to her. As the OPs did not redress her grievance, she was constrained to file the complaint case.
By submitting a WV, the OPs disputed/denied all the material allegation. Counter case of the OPs is that the Complainant availed of a personal loan amounting to Rs. 98,000/- from the OPs on 31-10-2013 which was repayable in 36 instalments. In this regard, the Complainant issued Auto Debit/ECS mandate besides signing the Loan Term sheet, Application Form and a Promissory Note in favour of the OPs. It is pointed out by the OPs that although the said loan was sanctioned in October, 2013, the Complainant raised the issue only in February, 2015, when EMIs started bouncing; meanwhile, she repaid 14 EMIs. It is alleged that since there was follow up for dishonoured EMIs, in order to cover up her own lapses, the Complainant approached this Commission.
The moot point for determination is whether the Complainant indeed applied for the disputed loan or not.
Decision with reasons
We have heard the Ld. Advocates of the parties and gone through the documents on record.
It is the case of the Complainant that she did not apply for the disputed loan at all. On the other hand, it is claimed by the OPs that following due norms and after discharging necessary formalities, the Complainant availed of the subject loan.
Incidentally, the Complainant disowned all the signatures contained in different papers pertaining to the disputed loan.
It seems quite inexplicable, against such rival contention of the parties that the OPs have not furnished the original papers pertaining to the disputed loan, which would certainly put at rest all ambiguities in the matter.
That said, on going through the documents on record, we come across several inconsistencies to which we have got no satisfactory explanation from the Ld. Advocate for the OPs.
It is claimed by the OPs that, at the time of applying for the subject loan, the Complainant discharged loan application form, loan term sheet, application form, Promissory Note etc. It is noteworthy here that the OPs in their reply under affidavit confessed that they cannot show any document containing the original signature of the Complainant in respect of the disputed second loan.
It is quite baffling that although the complaint case was filed in the year 2015, no endeavour was made from the side of the OPs to call for the requisite original documents from their other branch office, where the same have been kept, if they at all possess the same, in order to establish the bona fide of their claim.
No doubt, the original documents pertaining to the disputed loan was extremely crucial to unearth the inherent truth. The deliberate inertia on the part of the OPs to bring those documents do raise eyebrows.
It appears that, at the time of availing of a loan in May, 2013, the Complainant issued 4 nos. post dated cheques as security deposit. After she squared off the said loan, vide an e-mail dated 29-03-2015, the OPs confirmed that they purged the concerned cheques. If that was indeed so, how come the said cheques were used in respect of the disputed loan and most importantly, why the OPs did not insist on issuing fresh cheques before sanctioning the disputed loan.
The OPs used the same bank statement of the Complainant in respect of both the loans although the disputed personal loan was sanctioned after a gap of 5 months. This is not understood.
In terms of the RBI guideline dated 18-02-2013 on Fair Practices Code for NBFCs, it is incumbent on the part of the NBFCs to forward a copy of the loan agreement to the borrower. However, no tangible proof is furnished on behalf of the OPs to establish that such Regulatory directive was duly complied with by them.
No proof is also furnished on behalf of the OPs to show that the Complainant was duly kept in the loop about the actual outstanding position periodically.
Notwithstanding the Ld. Advocate questioned the timing of raising such issue, keeping in mind the fact that the Complainant is a simple house-wife, the possibility that she did not check her bank passbook regularly cannot be ruled out.
Be that as it may, taking into consideration the above perplexities in the matter, it does appear to us that the Complainant is indeed the victim of unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The latter had no business granting unintended loan in favour of the Complainant.
Considering all aspects, we thus deem it appropriate to allow the case.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
The case stands allowed on contest against the OPs. Complainant is directed to return the differential amount of loan credited to the savings account of the Complainant vis-à-vis the amount realized from the account of the Complainant by the OPs as EMIs so far within 40 days from this day and thereafter, she need not pay any further amount in respect of the disputed loan. OPs shall pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant within the aforesaid stipulated period of time along with Rs. 20,000/- as cost, i.d., the awarded amount shall entail payment of simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this case before this Commission till full and final payment is made.
