STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No.459 OF 2010)

Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd., SCO No.407-408, Sector–35-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager/ Authorized Signatory and also having its head office at 3, LSC Pushp Vihar, Madan Gir, New Delhi-110062 through its Authorized Representative Miss Jasneet Bajaj. 

….…Appellant

V E R S U S

Bhupinder Kaur W/o Sh. Jagdish Singh, R/o H.No.2665-A, Sector –20-C, Chandigarh.

.…..Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:      HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. D.K. Singal, Advocate for appellant.

                Mrs. Bhupinder Kaur, respondent in person.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.                This appeal is directed against the order dated  17.09.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which the complaint was accepted and the OP, was directed to re-calculate the amount of the EMIs, based on the loan of Rs.1.00 lac, with interest @12.8% per annum (flat rate), and accordingly, work out the total amount, payable by the Complainant and all other calculations made by the OP, based on the excessive rate of interest ranging from 17.22 % to 22.6% stood cancelled; to refund the entire excess amount charged from the Complainant, as per fresh calculations; and to pay compensation of Rs.25000/-, to the Complainant, for causing physical harassment, mental agony; and pay costs of Rs.7000/-, as litigation expenses. It was further directed that, if the OP failed, to comply with the order, within a period of 30 days of the receipt, of its certified copy, it shall pay Rs.25,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 17.09.2008 till realization, besides payment of  costs of litigation and also to comply with the remaining directions, given in the order.

2.                The facts, in brief are that, the complainant (now respondent) took a personal loan of Rs.1,00,000/- @12.87% interest per annum (flat rate) and an agreement dated 27.08.2007, was executed, between the parties. The loan was to be repaid within 36 months, by way of equal monthly installments. It was further stated that the complainant made payment of the entire amount, but the OP failed to give the breakup. It was further stated that instead of interest @12.8% p.a., (flat rate) the OP charged compound interest @22.68% p.a. The OP was, many a time, asked to refund the amount charged from her, in excess, but to no avail. It was further stated that the complainant was caused harassment, on account of the acts of the OP. It was further stated that the acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice.

3.                When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, she filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only).

4.                The OP, in its written reply, pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable. It was stated that an agreement was executed, between the parties. It was further stated that as per the repayment plan schedule, the complainant was to repay the amount in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs. 3850/- each.  It was further stated that as per the agreement, between the parties, the interest was to be charged @12.87% p.a. (flat rate). It was further stated that the complainant did not repay the loan amount, as per the schedule, mentioned in the loan agreement, and, consequently, made defaults. It was further stated that a sum of Rs.12032.86 was still outstanding as on 02.07.2010. It was denied, that the interest was charged on compound basis, @22.68% p.a. It was also denied, that the complainant made an excess payment. It was further stated that, it was the complainant, who was at fault. It was denied, that there was any deficiency, in rendering service, by the OP, to the complainant. All other averments were denied. 

5.                The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.                After hearing the complainant, in person, as well as Counsel for the OP, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order.

7.                Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed by the OP (now appellant).

8.                Alongwith the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay for 62 days in filing the appeal, was also filed.

9.                We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record, of the case carefully. 

10.             First, coming to the application for condonation of delay of 62 days, it may be stated here, that the grounds set up therein by the applicant/appellant are to the effect that, the impugned order was passed on 17.09.2010, and the certified copy thereof, was delivered to the applicant/appellant on 22.09.2010. Thereafter, the same had been handed over to the appellant, by its Counsel. It was further stated that the applicant/appellant, referred the matter, to its Regional Office, located at Chandigarh. The Regional Office, referred the matter, to Head Office, located in New Delhi. The Head Office of the Company, forwarded the same for taking stock of the situation, arising out of the said order, to the Legal Department, for its legal opinion. It was further stated that the concerned department of the applicant/appellant Company put up the matter, before the Regional Manger of the applicant/appellant Company, which was the competent authority, alongwith the opinion of the Legal Cell. Ultimately, the Regional Manager of the Company took the decision to file an appeal, before the State Commission. It was further stated that, thereafter, the Legal Department of the Company, engaged a lawyer and instructed him, to file an appeal, against the impugned order dated 17.09.2010. It was further stated that, on account of the aforesaid circumstances, the delay of 62 days occurred, which was neither, intentional nor deliberate.

11.             Reply to the application, was filed by the respondent/complainant. The averments, made in, the application were denied. It was stated that there was no ground, for condonation of  delay.

12.             From the grounds, set up, in the application, for condonation of delay of 62 days, which is duly supported by an affidavit of Miss Jasneet Bajaj, Authorized Representative of the applicant/appellant, it is evident, that the delay of 62 days, in filing of appeal, occurred on account of cumbersome procedure, which was required to be adopted, by the Company, before taking decision, as to whether, an appeal was to be filed, against the impugned order, or not. It was not a one man show, that the decision, could be taken, promptly. As per the procedure, in the first instance, the matter was sent to the Regional Office, which, in turn, sent a copy of the order, to the Head Office. The matter was examined by the Legal Department of the applicant/appellant, and thereafter, it was decided that the appeal should be filed. This procedure, as we all know, as to how the officials in the offices work, must have taken sufficient time. There was, therefore, neither any inaction nor lack of bonafides, on the part of the applicant/appellant, in filing the appeal in time. The grounds, set up, in the application, duly supported by an affidavit of the Authorized Representative, constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay of 62 days, in filing the appeal, is allowed, and the delay of 62 days is condoned.

13.             Coming to the main appeal, it may be stated here, that, we are of the considered opinion, that the same is liable to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. There is, no dispute, between the parties, that a personal loan of Rs.1 lac, was obtained by complainant/respondent. There is hardly any dispute, between the parties, that an agreement of loan Annexure C-1 was executed, between the parties, on 27.08.2007. This document was duly signed by Bhupinder Kaur, complainant/respondent. Alongwith this document, there is a schedule of payment plan of the loan amount. As per this plan, the loan was to be repaid in 36 equal monthly installments. Annexure C-2, the schedule of payment plan, also shows that the loan was to be repaid in 36 equal monthly installments @ Rs.3850/- per month with interest @12.87% p.a. (flat rate). C-4 and C-4/A, have been placed, on record, by the complainant, but these unauthenticated documents do not relate to the present case, as they do not carry the name of the respondent/complainant, as a loanee, nor bear her loan account. In the instant case, the appellant is Citi Financial, whereas C-4 and C-4/A are the documents relating to ICICI Home Finance loan against property. It was a case of simple mathematical calculations. The District Forum, relying upon the documents C-4 and C-4A, as also on C-8, unrelated to the present case, wrongly came to the conclusion, that the respondent/complainant charged interest at a higher rate. As per the schedule of payment plan, C-2, relating to the account of the respondent/complainant, the last installment of loan was to be paid in September, 2010. The amount, which was to be repaid, by the respondent/complainant, as per the payment schedule referred to above, came to be Rs.1,38,600/-, against the amount of loan of Rs.1 lac. The respondent/complainant only made payment of Rs.1,27,050/, in 33 monthly installments, which fact is evident, from OP/1. Thereafter, she stopped making payment of the remaining installments. A sum of Rs.12,032.86 paisa, was still due, against the respondent/complainant, to the appellant, at the relevant time. It is not known, as to how, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that interest at an excess rate was charged and that the complainant had repaid the amount, in excess.

14.             It is, thus, evident, that the appellant was not deficient in rendering service. It was only the respondent/complainant, who made default, in making payment of installments. For her own fault, she tried to blame the appellant. The order of the District Forum is not based on the correct appreciation of  evidence, relating to this case, and, law, on the point, and, therefore, is unsustainable in the eyes of law.  

15.             In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order of the District is illegal and perverse, warranting the interference of this Commission.

16.             For the reasons, recorded above, the appeal is accepted with costs of Rs.3,000/-. The order of the District Forum, is set aside and the complaint stands dismissed.

17.             Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

11^th May, 2011                                                  Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

                                                                                                Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg