Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/1194

Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development & Finance Corp. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhupinder Singh - Opp.Party(s)

R.L.Luthra

02 Sep 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH

                                     

                   First Appeal No.1194 of 2012

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 10.09.2012

                                                          Date of Decision:  02.09.2015

 

1.       Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development and Finance  Corporation, SCO No.101 to 103, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

 

2.       Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development and Finance  Corporation, Gurdaspur, through its District Manager.

 

                                                                                                                                                                     …..Appellants/Opposite parties                                      

                                      Versus

 

Bhupinder Singh S/o Sh. Khazan Singh, C/o .B.R Automobiles, G.T Road, Model Town, Batala , Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur.

 

                                                                                                                                           ……..Respondent/Complainant

 

First Appeal against order dated 24.07.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

Present:-

          For the appellant                      : Sh.Bhuwan Luthra, Advocate  

          For the respondent                  : Sh.Vinay Kumar, Advocate

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellants of this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint) have directed this appeal against the respondent (the complainant in the complaint), challenging order dated 24.07.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Gurdaspur, accepting  the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to charge the agreed rate of interest @ 8% simple interest on the loan amount advanced to the complainant on reducing balance basis. The OPs were directed to maintain two different accounts i.e. one pertaining to the principal amount and the remaining account pertaining to the interest paid by the respondents of this appeal and to adjust 60% of the amount thereof in principal and remaining 40% towards interest. The appeal has been preferred by the OPs now appellants in this appeal.

2.      The complainant Bhupinder Singh has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that he took a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from OPs in the year 2001-2002 for self-employment to earn his livelihood for his family. The said loan was to be repaid by him in 10 years period in 19 installments, which would come to Rs.2,84,204/- including simple interest. The complainant had paid Rs.3,64,500/- to OPs uptill 29.12.2011 in the installments. The OPs issued letter bearing memo no.7537 dated 16.08.2011, alleging that complainant deposited Rs.2,80,200/- with OPs till 22.03.2011 and also alleging that the amount of Rs.1,35,829/- was still due from the complainant. The complainant came to know that OPs have illegally and arbitrarily adjusted the amount of Rs.1,86,030/- + Rs.7370/- from the account deposited by the complainant towards penal interest, which is unauthorized one. OP No.1 came with the Tehsildar Batala at the premises of the complainant and compelled him to deposit the balance amount of the loan. The complainant deposited Rs.34,000/- on 29.08.2011 and also deposited Rs.10,000/- on 31.10.2011, Rs.10,000/- on 30.11.2011 and Rs.10,000/- on 29.12.2011 under protest. The OPs have not given any schedule of payment of deposit instalments and yearly account statement, despite repeated requests. Photocopy of schedule/recovery chart was blank on the part of the OPs. The complainant moved application under RTI Act to receive the statement of account, the details regarding the amount of Rs.20,000/-, which was deposited by the complainant on 20.08.2004, vide receipt no.41/3854 and was not given and rather it was depicted that the OPs had malafide intention and made wrong and illegal demand by hook and crook. The OPs illegally charged Rs.80,296/- from the complainant. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.80,296/- unauthorizedly charged from the complainant.

3.      Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply raising preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint under Section 31 of the Punjab Scheduled Caste Land Development and Finance Corporation Act 1970. The present complaint is false and fictitious. On merits, it was admitted by the OPs that complainant had taken a loan of Rs.2,00,000/-, which was repayable in ten years in 19 installments. In case of default, penal interest @ 5% was to be charged. It was denied by the OPs that complainant till date had paid a sum of Rs.3,64,500/- instead of Rs.3,44,500/- . The OPs also wrote letter dated 16.08.2011 to the complainant in this regard.  It was admitted by the OP that complainant had deposited Rs.2,80,200/- . The actual detail was given as below :-

          Rs.71,541/- was principal amount and Rs.22,629/-was interest         and Rs.1,86,030/- was interest/penal interest that comes       Rs.2,80,200/-.

The complainant had not paid regular installments and, thus, his case becomes L.S.R on 30.01.2005 and interest charged @ 8% and penal interest @ 5% also charged, thus, total Rs.3,44,500/- had been deposited by the complainant  i.e (Rs.1,15,814/- principal amount, Rs.12,195/- interest and Rs.1,16,491 interest/penal interest). It was admitted by the OPs in the written reply that complainant had deposited Rs.34,000/- on 29.08.2011 under O.T.S Scheme (One Time Settlement). In this scheme, if complainant wanted to take benefit of the said scheme, then complainant would have to pay Rs.55,000/- till 29.08.2012. If complainant does not avail the O.T.S opportunity, then he has to pay Rs.84,186/-. It was denied by the OPs that they ever charged Rs.20,000/-, as excess payment. The amount of Rs.20,000/-, which the complainant had alleged to be not entered into his account, was, in fact, deposited in the account of complainant's brother namely Rajinder Singh on 30.08.2004. The said amount had not been deposited by the complainant in his own loan account. It was denied by OPs that any excess amount had been charged from the complainant, rather the complainant was not aware that he would have to pay penal interest in case of default in payment of installments. Rests of the averments of the complainant were controverted and, thus, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 along with copies of the documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-10. As against it, OPs tendered in evidence, the affidavit of Sh.Yashpal Sharma District Manager Punjab Scheduled Caste Land Development and Finance Corporation Ex.R-1 along with copies of documents Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-6. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, Gurdaspur, accepted the complaint of the complainant by giving directions to the OPs, as referred to above. Dissatisfied with the order dated 24.07.2012 of the District Forum Gurdaspur, the OPs now appellants have preferred this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.

6.      The first submission of the counsel for the appellants is that jurisdiction of Consumer Forum is excluded, in view of Section 31 of the Punjab Scheduled Caste Land Development and Finance Corporation ACT, 1970, Section 30 on the said Act, which  is reproduced as under :-

"30. Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil  court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter, which the Corporation or any officer or authority appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine , and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act."

It is, thus, evident from perusal of the Section 30 of the Act that jurisdiction of Civil Courts has been excluded. Additional remedy has been provided under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the matter, as it has been provided on it by Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act. The finding recorded by the District Forum on this point is not infirm in any manner. In view of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and in view of law laid down in Jagjit Kumari vs. Kailash Co-operative Housing Building Society limited and others, reported in 2005(2) CPC 339 (NC), as relied upon by District Forum, we affirm with the view of District Forum that jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum exists in this type of case.

7.      Touching merits of the case, the plea of the complainant raised is that OPs have not supplied schedule of repayment of loan installments to him. The complainant was kept in darkness about the installments to be paid by him and as to how they would be adjusted by the OPs. The OPs relied upon document Ex.C-2 dated 16.08.2011 pertaining to account no.3564 stating that uptil 22.03.2011, the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.2,80,200/-, out of which the amount of Rs.71,541/- has been adjusted towards the principal amount and Rs.22,629/- towards interest and Rs.1,86,030/- towards penal interest. It is further set out in it that uptill 31.08.2011,  the principal amount of Rs.1,28,459/-  and Rs.7370/- as interest and Rs.1,35,829/- as penal interest are still due from the complainant to OPs. OPs relied upon document Ex.R-2 on the record. The District Forum has rightly observed that back side of document Ex.R-2, the OPs were required to fill in the details of repayable loan installments by the complainant, whereas it is lying totally blank. It is pointer to this effect that schedule of repayable installments was neither prepared nor furnished to the complainant by the OPs. The complainant deposited Rs.22,500/- on 12.08.2002, whereas, he was required to deposit Rs.22,720/- , as per the case of the OPs.. It seems that OPs imposed penal interest of Rs.220/- for depositing less amount and due to this reason, the complainant was required to deposit Rs.22,720/- by the OPs. It is also  evident from perusal of statement of account, that the complainant deposited Rs.15,000/- with the OPs on 26.08.2003, Rs.10,000/- on 23.06.2004, Rs.55,000/- in the year 2005, Rs.25,000/- in the year 2006, further Rs.25,000/- in the year 2007, Rs.13,000/- in the year 2008, Rs.60,000/- in the year 2009, Rs.50,000/- in the year 2010, Rs.69,000/- in the year 2011 by way of different installments. From perusal of the above-referred submissions, no fault on the part of the complainant appears on the record. The counsel for the OPs now appellants could not point out any such default on the part of the complainant in this regard. The argument of counsel for the appellants is that complainant deposited less amount in year 2003-2004, than the required installments and he was declared defaulter and penal interest was levied upon him on the entire loan amount instead of charging agreed rate of interest @ 8% p.a. The OPs now started charging interest @ 13% per month without any notice to the complainant. The main reliance of the OPs is on Clause 7 of the sanction-cum-disbursement letter Ex.R-2. We have examined this document Ex.R-2 on the record. We find Clause 7 in it, where penal rate of interest as 5% is recorded and it has been added subsequently therein by means of overwriting. The column of this document Ex.R-2 has been typed, but the 5% penal interest is not typed and rather it appears to be have been tampered with. This document was in custody of the OPs and OPs were duty bound to explained how it so occurred, when the document was in their custody. Generally, defaulters remain remiss in making payment of the loan installments without bothering about their consequences.

8.      We are of this view that Punjab Scheduled Caste Land Development and Finance Corporation Act 1970 has been established for providing financial assistance to weaker sections of society for uplifting their lives. The object of the corporation is not like that of a Commercial Bank. The main purpose of the Corporation Act is to provide financial assistance to downtrodden/depressed people in the society, so that their living standard can be raised. The purpose of the Act, has not been properly applied in this case. The OPs charged the amount of Rs.2,16,491/- , as penal interest on Rs.2,00,000/-, which is more than double of the principal amount. The OPs adjusted the amount of Rs.12,195/- , as interest and Rs.1,15,814/- , as principal amount. The OPs were required to deposit 60% of the deposited amount towards principal amount and remaining 40% towards interest. Resorting to penal interest thereby recovering the double amount than the actual loan amount is not justifiable act on the part of OPs and it is rather an unfair trade practice by them. We find that Clause 7 of the document Ex.R-2 is tampered document and original has not been produced before us and consequently it is not less than any deficient service rendered by the OPs to the complainant, besides being unfair trade practice. The District Forum has, thus, rightly held that OPs are not entitled to recover the penal interest from complainant, when there was no such default on his part nor it has been established on the record.  The District Forum directed the OPs to charge agreed rate of interest from the complainant and thereby to adjust loan amount of the complainant accordingly. The District Forum also directed the Ops to maintain two different accounts i.e. one pertaining to the principal amount and the remaining pertaining to the interest account, as paid and due. The amounts deposited by the complainant from time to time be adjusted in the principal and in interest account on proportionate basis i.e. 60% amount be adjusted towards principal amount and remaining 40% towards interest amount. The District Forum further directed the OPs to refund the excess amount paid by the complainant, if any along with interest @ 8% p.a  to the complainant. The balance amount, if any found due would be paid by the complainant to OPs with simple interest @ 8% per annum only.

9.      In view of the above-referred discussion, we are in agreement with the order of the District Forum under challenge in this case and same is hereby affirmed in this appeal. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.

10.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 25.08.2015 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

11.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                          (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                             MEMBER

 

September 2,  2015.                                                                

(ravi)