Date of Filing :   20.08.2008

                                                                        Date of Order :   06.01.2016.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

                 DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.7/2009

             THURSDAY THIS  6^TH  DAY OF JANUARY 2016     

J.A. Pandiaraj,

Omega Agencies,

No.171, Arcot Road,

Valasaravakkam,

Chennai 600 087.                                         ..Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

1.  The Manager,

Barclays Bank PLC, Ground & 1st Floor,

Eros Corporate Towers,

Nehru Place,

New Delhi.

2. Thiru. Kannnan,

Manager,

Barclays Bank PLC,

First Floor,

No.69, Vallal Pachaiyappar Street,

Kamarajar Salai,

Kanchipuram 631 501.                                     ..Opposite parties.  

For the Complainant                   :   M/s. R. Mahalingam,   

For the 1^st Opposite party            :   M/s. Ramdoss & Gunaseelan

For the 2^nd opposite party           :   Dismissed   on 19.5.2011.

         Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to collect a sum of Rs.86,358/- as interest  only at the rate of 14.75 % and also to refund the process fee of Rs.35,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

ORDER

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-

   The complainant submit that after having through his business statement account, the 1^st opposite party has sanctioned personal loan for the complainant business a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- for which the 2^nd opposite party said to have been informed to the complainant by  email that the said loan of Rs.25,00,000/- was sanctioned on  condition as per interest for the same is at the rate of 14.75% p.a., processing fee is 1 %, EMI to be paid as monthly installments of Rs.89,507/- and tenure for the same is 36 months.  According to the said terms and conditions, the 1^st opposite party while sanctioning the loan and disbursed the loan amount has been given letter dated 19.3.2008 that the interest for the said loan is Rs.17.30% p.a., processing fee is Rs.50,000/- and EMI to be paid Rs.89,506/- p.m.  and letter to that effect by the 1^st opposite party has given to the complainant.  Accordingly the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties on 15.4.2008 which was received by them but they failed to send any reply.  Hence the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  As such the complainant sought for claims for a sum of Rs.86,358/- with interest and also to refund the process fee of Rs.35,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.    Hence the complaint.            

Written version of  1^st   opposite party is as  follows:-

2.     It denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The terms of the loan mentioned in the said para were informed to the complainant as admitted by him vide a welcome letter at the time of disbursal of loan.  As per terms agreed by the complainant loan documentation, it may be noted that the complainant chose to utilize the loan amount having received the said letter which clearly stipulated all the terms and conditions of the loan.  The said letter clearly mentioned rate of interest and processing fee which was as per documents executed by the complainant.   The opposite party-1 is not concerned with any dealing or alleged communication between the complainant and opposite party No.2.     Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.   As such the complaint filed by the complainant is to be dismissed, as not maintainable.

3.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Proof affidavit of Opposite party-1 is not filed  and no documents  filed on the side of the 1^st opposite party   

5.         The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1)   Whether the complaint is filed by the complainant is not maintainable as defined under the C.P. Act, 1986?.

2)   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the  reliefs asked for?.

6.     POINTS 1 to 3 : -

Perused the complaint filed by the complainant and his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 marked on the side of the complainant, Written version filed by the 1st  opposite party and also considered the written arguments of complainant and the oral arguments of 1^st opposite party’s counsel.

7.     This complaint is filed by the complainant against the opposite parties stating that at the  instance  of the 2^nd opposite party alleging that the 2^nd opposite party is an agent of the 1^st opposite party, the 1^st opposite party has sanctioned personal loan for the complainant business a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- for which the 2^nd opposite party said to have been informed to the complainant by Ex.A1 email that the said loan of Rs.25,00,000/- was sanctioned on  condition as per interest for the same is at the rate of 14.75% p.a., processing fee is 1 %, EMI to be paid as monthly installments of Rs.89,507/- and tenure for the same is 36 months.  Whereas contrary to the said terms and conditions the 1^st opposite party while sanctioning the loan and disbursed the loan amount has given letter dated 19.3.2008 that the interest for the said loan is Rs.17.30% p.a., processing fee is Rs.50,000/- and EMI to be paid at  Rs.89,506/- p.m.  and letter to that effect by the 1^st opposite party has been given to the complainant i.e. Ex.A2.   Raising grievance over the said terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.A2 letter given by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant, the complainant has filed this compliant stating contrary to their acceptance at the time of approaching loan the terms and conditions was changed by the 1^st opposite party as mentioned above which is not sustainable.   They have committed deficiency of service and suitable terms and conditions already accepted through 2^nd opposite party by the 1^st opposite party for the said loan has to be imposed.  Therefore the complainant prays  to collect a sum of Rs.86,358/- with interest and also to refund the process fee of Rs.35,000/- and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as mental agony with litigation charges.

8.     Whereas in the pending proceedings the complainant due to steps not taken against the 2^nd opposite party, this forum has passed order on 19.5.2011 that the complainant against the opposite party-2 was dismissed. 

9.     The 1^st opposite party has filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  The 2^nd opposite party is not an agent of the 1^st opposite party for the sanction of loan to the complainant by the 1^st opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party is no way concerned and further stated that the complainant himself had approached the 1^st opposite party for the sanction of the said loan and the loan was sanction after obtaining necessary documents executed by the complainant to the bank in which the complainant has agreed to pay interest and processing fee and also for the repayment of the loan as per terms and conditions agreed and signed by the complainant in favour of the bank and the terms and conditions were in detail has been informed to the complainant by letter Ex.A1 which is welcome letter sent by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant having availed the loan and received the loan amount raising such objection on the basis of assurance given by 2^nd opposite party who has nothing do with the 1^st opposite party is not valid and the complaint is to be dismissed. 

10.    Considering the facts and circumstances as far as the contention made by the complainant that the 2^nd opposite party is the agent of 1^st opposite party bank through whom 2^nd opposite party the loan amount was sanctioned by 1^st opposite party to the complainant are all not acceptable and not proved by the complainant.

11.    The letter Ex.A1 relied upon only the complainant will show that it has nothing to do with the 1^st opposite party and on what authority the 2^nd opposite party had written such letter to the complainant.   Further against the 2^nd opposite party though this complaint is filed by the complainant, since proper notice has not been taken by the complainant in this proceeding the complaint against the 2^nd opposite party was dismissed for default by order of this forum dated 19.5.2011 itself.  Therefore we are of the considered view that the allegation made against the 1^st opposite party on the basis of the alleged assurance given by the 2^nd opposite party for the sanction of loan and terms and conditions thereon is not valid and will not bind upon the 1^st opposite party.

12.    Further as contended by the 1^st opposite party the loan amount of Rs.25,00,000/- was sanctioned to the complainant on his approach and after obtained necessary documents executed by the complainant and the loan amount disbursed to the complainant on issuance of letter Ex.A2 by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant containing terms and conditions and particulars of the loan and the same was disbursed on the same date are all acceptable.   Therefore we are of the considered view that as contented by the 1^st opposite party, complainant have availed the loan from the 1^st opposite party bank as per the terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.A2 alone is acceptable.  The complainant is liable to pay interest for the said loan as agreed by him and necessary documents executed by him in favour of the bank for payment of interest at the rate of 17.30% and also other terms and conditions agreed by him at the time of sanctioning of loan.   It is pertinent to note that the complainant is a business man  who had obtained the complaint mentioned loan for the improvement of his business loan in the name of “Omega Agencies” as such the dispute arised out of the said transaction is to business transaction.   Since the complaint mentioned transaction is for the purpose of business,­ as per under section  2 (1) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act 1986   the complainant is not considered to be consumer and the complaint cannot be maintainable before this forum is acceptable.

13.    Therefore as discussed above considering the above facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered view that the complaint filed by the complainant is not based on valid ground as well as not maintainable under the C.P. Act 1986 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the 1^st opposite party.   Therefore the complainant is at liberty to file civil suit.   The time spent by the complainant before this Forum is excluded for the purpose of limitation under Sec.14 of The Limitation Act.  Hence, we answered these points 1 & 2 accordingly.

        In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the  6^th  day  of  January   2016.

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-         -       - Copy of email received from the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A2- 19.3.2008  - Copy of letter by the 1^st opposite party to the

                             Complainant.

Ex.A3- 15.4.2008  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A4-         -       - Copy of returned cover addressed to 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.A5          -       -        - Copy two cheques by the 2^nd opposite party along with

                             Returned Memo.

Opposite parties’ Exhibits:-    ..Nil ..

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.