BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.82 of 2017
Date of Instt. 29.03.2017
Date of Decision: 20.06.2017
Baljinder Singh aged about 40 years s/o Sh. Harbans Singh, R/o H. No.79, Village Samrai, Tehsil Dera Baba Nanak, District Amritsar.
.........Complainant
Versus
1. Branch Manager-cum-Collection Manager, India Infoline Finance Limited, Sai Mall, Second Floor, Near KFC Restaurant, H. No.201-L Model Town, Jalandhar.
2. Managing Director, India Infoline Finance Limited, 12A-10, 13th Floor, Parinee Crescenzo, C-38 & 39, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandar (East), Mumbai-400051.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. Kanwar Ajay Singh Rana, Advocate Counsel for complainant.
OP No.1 and 2 exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint presented by complainant, wherein alleged that complainant got financed one vehicle Tractor Trailor TATA 4018 alongwith trolley from OP No.1 on 30.05.2015 for a sum of Rs.19,60,000/- and it was agreed that the complainant has to repay the said loan amount in 52 monthly installments. Due to loss in business, the complainant could not pay few installments. However, the complainant had paid 18 installments. Photocopy of statement of account of complainant is annexed with the complaint. That thereafter the complainant went to the office of the OP No.1 and requested them to get the defaulted payment deposited with them, but the OP No.1 refused to accept the same and instead of demanded exorbitant rate of interest i.e. 36% per annum than the agreed rate of interest from the complainant. Moreover, the recovery officer of the OP has received Rs.20,000/- in the month of December, 2016 from the complainant but the said official did not issue receipt to the complainant on the plea that the receipt book was not available with the said official and he would give the same to the complainant later on. The complainant requested the OP not to claim excess rate of interest from him and also include Rs.20,000/-, which the complainant has paid to the recovery official of the OPs but the OP refused to accede the request of the complainant and instead threatened to take forcibly possession of the vehicle from the complainant and alienate the vehicle in question to some third person at throw away prices.
2. That at the time of advancement of loan OPs got the signature of the complainant on dotted lines on various allied documents. No document and copy of loan agreement have been supplied relating to the loan advanced to the complainant by OPs, despite requesting. Not supplying the copies of the loan agreement/repayment of loan schedule tantamount to deficiency in rendering service, unfair trade practices contemplated under the provisions of the Act, besides against the settled non-banking financial institution norms, procedure and practice and the guide lines of the Reserve Bank of India. Supply of copies of loan documents to the complainant is mandatory under non-banking financial institution norms. That thereafter, the officials as well as musclemen of the OPs tried to take forcible and illegal possession of the vehicle in question from the complainant many times but with the intervention of the complainant and his known persons the attempt of the musclemen of the OPs was repelled. That they are demanding the excess rate of interest i.e. 36% per annum from the complainant and whereby the OPs have caused unfair trade practice and rendered deficiency in service. That the OPs while threatening the complainant to take possession of the vehicle in question from the complainant forcibly and illegally, unlawfully prevented the complainant from earning his livelihood which is the only source of his income due to which the complainant has suffered a great financial loss and the complainant has been deprived to use the said vehicle for earning his livelihood by self employment. The OPs have no right to claim excess rate of interest from the complainant and also has got no right to take forcible possession of the vehicle in question from the complainant and as such the present complaint filed with the prayer that the OPs may kindly be directed not to claim excess rate of interest from the complainant and settle the account of the complainant as per terms and conditions agreed between the parties and further also direct the OPs not to take forcible possession of the vehicle in question from the complainant for the reason stated above in the interest of justice.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties but despite service both the OPs did not come present and as such they were proceeded against exparte.
4. In order to prove his exparte claim, complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Mark C-1 i.e. Account Statement and Mark C2 i.e. Loan Agreement Payment Schedule and closed his evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also minutely scanned the file very carefully.
6. No doubt the claim of the complainant remains un-rebutted and un-challenged in this case because the OPs despite service did not come present to oppose the claim of the complainant, but we think under this situation necessity arose to deeply go through the version of the complainant because the same is not controverted by the other party and accordingly, we have gone through the documents as well as pleadings of the complainant, wherein he alleged that the OP is demanding exorbitant rate of interest @ 36% per annum but nowhere in the complaint, the complainant himself described the agreed rate of interest, whether it is 12%, 18% or 36% and further the complainant alleged that he paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- in the month of December, 2016 to the official of OPs but the same is not accounted for. This version of the complainant is not acceptable because why he deposited or handed over such huge amount to any official of the OP without getting a receipt rather he has required to deposit any amount in the office after getting the receipt. Furthermore the allegation of the complainant is that the OP is trying to forcibly get the possession of the vehicle in question and also OP failed to supply the copy of the loan agreement and other document which is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. If the documents were not provided by the OP then where from the complainant has brought on the file statement of account and loan agreement, we think these are the main documents which are required to be handed over to the loanee. If so then, the question of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is not established.
7. From other angle, as per allegations of the complainant are that the OPs are demanding interest @ 36% and also trying to take forcibly possession of the vehicle in question. For that purpose, we are required to go through the documents placed on the file by complainant himself which are statement of accounts Mark C1 and Mark C2 is a letter given by the OP, wherein the loan account number. is mentioned and loan amount is mentioned Rs.1,960,000/- and further agreed to pay by way of 52 monthly installments and EMI amount is mentioned Rs.50,498/- and first EMI date is 03 July, 2015. If we co-relate this document Mark C2 with statement of account at Page No.4, then it becomes clear the first EMI amount of Rs.50,498/- was deposited by the complainant on 30.07.2015, instead of 03.07.2015 and thereafter no alleged EMI of Rs.50,498/- has been shown, deposited by the complainant, no doubt the complainant has deposited the amount but lesser to the EMI, in some time deposited Rs.40,000/-, 30,000/- and 25,000/- etc. but the complainant failed to adhere the term and condition and as such the complainant himself is at fault and further so for the concern of charging of excess interest rate is concerned, for that purpose, the copy of the agreement is available on the file though the same is not exhibited or mark by complainant intentionally and therein a Clause delay/defaulter in payment is scribed at heading No.7 and as per term and condition, if the Borrowers defaults in making payment of any EMI, shall be liable to pay Additional Interest. So, it means there is an agreement that if the complainant becomes defaulter in payment of loan then he will be liable to pay additional interest and therefore, the OPs are well within their entitlement to recover the excess rate of interest. So for the question of taking the vehicle in possession by the OP is related, for that purpose there is an other clause in the agreement i.e. Clause No.17 under the heading of Enforcement, as per this Clause, if defaulter in payment of the loan then the Hypothecated vehicle can be taken into repossession by the OP. So, accordingly if the complainant is defaulter not in one monthly installment rather so many installments have not been paid, then the OPs are well within their purview to get the possession of the vehicle from the complainant. So, with these observations, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP nor any unfair trade practice. So, with these observations, we do not find any force in the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant and therefore, the complaint is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
20.06.2017 Member President
