Kerala

Malappuram

CC/742/2023

SIRAJUDHEEN C - Complainant(s)

Versus

BRANCH MANAGER INDUSIND BANK - Opp.Party(s)

22 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MALAPPURAM
UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT-2019 NEW ACT
 
Complaint Case No. CC/742/2023
( Date of Filing : 27 Dec 2023 )
 
1. SIRAJUDHEEN C
CHAVILKADAN HOUSE VALLUVAMBRAM POST POOKKOTTUR 673642
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. BRANCH MANAGER INDUSIND BANK
MANJERI BRANCH MANJERI POST 676121
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. MOHANDASAN K PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. MOHAMED ISMAYIL CV MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. PREETHI SIVARAMAN C MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 22 Nov 2024
Final Order / Judgement

By Sri. MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER

The grievances of the complainant are  in brief:-

1.   The complainant had availed a loan of Rs. 5,19,000/- from the opposite party  for purchasing a vehicle and EMI was fixed to the tune of  Rs.11,835/- each covering a period 56  instalments. At the time of availing loan, the complainant had executed   documents on the basis of direction of the opposite party.  The complainant had made payment of EMIs without any fail.  But  during the time of  Covid 19 pandemic,  the  opposite party  did not  withdrawn  EMIs from his account  for the  months of  March, April and May 2020 though sufficient amount was availed in his account.  During Covid -19 pandemic period the complainant was lived in Dubai. After his return, he had committed defaulted of 2 EMIs only.   On the basis of direction given by the opposite party, after conciliation, the complainant remitted had Rs. 38,420/- to the loan account.   Thereafter the opposite party had intimated that all dues were cleared. Then the complainant continued to make payment of EMIs without any fail.   As per loan agreement, the payment of last instalment was fixed on 21/12/2023.  But the opposite party had arbitrarily rescheduled repayment instalments and thereby extended it upto August, 2024.  The complainant is not liable to make payment of  5 additional instalments except that of moratorium period. The act of the opposite party has caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. So the complainant prayed for directions to the opposite party pay a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- and cost of litigation.

2.     The opposite party appeared on notice and submitted written version.

3.    The opposite party denied allegations raised in the complaint. The opposite party admitted the loan availed by the complainant from them.  According to the opposite party there are no allegations of violation of terms and conditions of agreement number EBJ00717C executed between the complainant and the opposite party in connection with loan transaction.  The complainant was well conversant with terms and conditions of loan. The loan amount was Rs. 5,19,000/- and interest was fixed  to the tune of Rs.1,57,700/- and EMI was Rs.11,835/-for 60 monthly instalments. During Covid-19 Pandemic period Reserve Bank of India had announced a moratorium facility to all eligible borrowers for the period from March, 2020 to August 2020. As per the scheme, interest should continue to accrue for the said deferred periods for which loan borrowers were liable to pay. On the basis of announcement of moratorium, the opposite party had sent SMS to all the customers including the complainant at their respective mobile numbers inviting them to opt out moratorium scheme and a web link had been provided to confirm the same.  It is contended that the complainant not chosen to opt out through the SMS or through web link.  Hence, the opposite party provided moratorium facility to the complainant. Thereafter loan term had been extended to 64 monthly instalment starting from 20/04/2019 to 21/08/2024. The interest charge was enhance to the tune of Rs.1,78,223/-.  According to the opposite party no regular instalment was collected from the account of the complainant during moratorium.  Moratorium interest and revised repayment schedule were arrived at only after considering total outstanding dues payable by the complainant. The interest levied by the opposite party is in accordance with terms of agreement as well as RBI guidelines.  It is admitted that interest was enhanced due to availment of moratorium scheme and restructure of loan account.  On 05/11/2020 the opposite party even remitted Rs. 651.19/- to the loan account of the complainant in compliance of RBI guidelines. It is contended that the complainant wilfully made default on monthly instalments and thereby violated terms of agreement. On 21/03/2021 and on 21/06/2021 the complainant defaulted payment of EMIs. There was delayed payment in the month of August and September, as on 25/08/2021 and 24/09/2021 respectively.  As a result there was cheque return charges imposed on loan account.  As per clause 2.8 (iii) of loan agreement, the complainant is liable to pay additional interest charge for defaulted payment.  The outstanding due of loan amount was Rs. 58,003.07/- as on 16/1/2023. There was no deficiency in service from the side of the opposite party, hence they   stood for dismissal of the complaint.

4.   The complainant and opposite party submitted proof affidavits in lieu of evidence.  The documents from the side of the complainant are marked as Ext. A1 to A4. Ext. A1 document is the copy of payment slip for Rs.38420/- in favour of the opposite party by the complainant. Ext.A2 document is the copy of repayment schedule of the loan. Ext.A3 document is the copy of Consumer Finance Application Form. Ext.A4 document is the copy of first repayment schedule. The documents from the side of the opposite party are marked as Ext. B1 and B2.  Ext. B1 document is the copy of Statement of Accounts of the complainant. Ext. B2 document is the copy of repayment schedule of the loan availed by the complainant.

5.   Heard the parties in detail, perused documents along with affidavits carefully, The Commission also examined notes of argument submitted by the opposite party. The points considered for adjudication of the matter are:-

  1. Whether the  act of opposite parties are amounted to unfair trade practice?
  2. Relief and cost?

Point No.(i):-

6.       The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party has arbitrarily rescheduled loan repayment period by extending from 21/12/2023 to 21/08/2024.  According to the complainant, he had availed a loan of Rs. 5,19,000/- for purchasing  a vehicle from the opposite party.  At the time of availing loan repayment was fixed in 56 instalments, later it was enhanced to 57 instalments starting from 20/04/2019 to 21/12/2023. The EMI was fixed to the tune of Rs. 11,835/- each. It is  also alleged  by the complainant  that the opposite party did not collect EMIs for the months of March, April  and May of 2020 from his account even  though  sufficient  amount was therein, instead included  in the Moratorium Scheme  without notice  to him.  In the pretext  as per Ext. A2 document  rescheduled  duration  inclusion in the moratorium  Scheme , the opposite party duration of payment  thereby  extended  loan period up to  21/8/2024. It is argued that the act of the opposite party has caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.  The agreement of the complainant is that repayment of loan was made without any default, hence the opposite party is not entitled for any amount other mentioned in Ext. A4 document. 

7.     On the contrary, the opposite party argued that the complainant has violated terms and condition of loan agreement by defaulting repayment loan instalments. According to the opposite party, they had sent SMS to the complainant inviting them to opt out moratorium Scheme and a web link, but the complainant not chosen to opt out from the scheme. So moratorium Scheme was availed by the complainant, hence loan term had been extended to 64 monthly instalments starting from 20/04/2019 to 21/08/2024. It is further argued that repayment amount was revised due to moratorium interest as well as outstanding dues.  So the complainant is liable  to make  payment in accordance with revised schedule.

8.     Firstly, the Commission considering the argument of the complainant that whether the inclusion of loan account in Moratorium Scheme was arbitrarily and without giving due notice. According to the complainant, there was sufficient  amount  in his account to honour the EMIs for the month of March, April and May of 2020. The opposite party did not raise a contention that account of the complainant did not have sufficient amount to collect EMI for the months of March, April and May of 2020.  Moreover the opposite party also failed to adduce evidence to show that the complainant had opted Moratorium Scheme with free consent.  In addition, the opposite party failed to produce details of SMS allegedly sent to the complainant at the time of declaration of Moratorium scheme. Hence  the Commission find that extension of loan period from  57 to  64 is arbitrary,  and  without  any basis  and the  same is  amounted to  deficiency in service.

9.     The argument of the opposite party that interest rate  was enhanced  due  to reschedule  of  loan  payment  and default committed in the month of August and September of 2021 is unacceptable and  without backing  of any document . It has come out in evidence that the complainant made repayment of due as per Ext. A1 document.   Ext. A1 document would show that the complainant has made payment of Rs.38, 420/- to close the existing due.  The opposite party did not challenge Ext. A1 document. Moreover Ext.B1 document produced by the opposite party does not reveal that the complainant, had been committed default of any EMIs after the payment made on 24/9/2021 as per Ext.A1 document. The Commission also consider the fact that the opposite party has suppressed details of loan agreement before  this Commission. Hence the Commission cannot reply upon any contentions raised by the opposite party with regard to terms and conditions of loan agreement except otherwise admitted by the complainant. In the examination of Ext. A3 document , it can be  seen that  at the time availing  loan repayment  of EMIs  were  fixed  in 56 instalment , but it is admitted  by the  complainant  that later it was enhanced to 57 EMIs  on the basis of a notice issued  by the opposite party.  The opposite party did not challenge Ext.A3 document also. On the basis of aforementioned findings, the act of extension duration of repayment schedule is amounted to unfair trade practice.  The Commission find that the opposite party has no right to collect EMI other than EMIs for the month of March, April and May of 2020, which are included in  Moratorium Scheme.  Any additional payment to 3 EMIs would definitely cause inconvenience and financial  loss to the complainant.

Point No.(ii):-

10.    In the complaint, the complainant prayed for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 75,000/- as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony and financial loss caused due to the act of unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party.  The Commission find that the complainant did not prove the exact quantum of financial loss sustained to him due to the act of deficiency in service.  Hence the Commission is declined to make any other in that regard.  It is evident from the facts and circumstances of the case that the complainant has suffered mental agony due to unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party.  Hence the opposite party is liable to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. Moreover the opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 5000/- to the complainant  as cost of litigation, because  the opposite party had  forced  the  complainant  to adopt legal  action to  get  redressed  the grievances.  On the basis deliberations made above the complaint is allowed in the following manner:-

  1. The opposite party is directed to receive Rs.35,505/-(Rupees Thirty five thousand five hundred and  five only) from the complainant  as due account  of EMIs during the period of  Moratorium  Scheme  and issue  document  in that regard  to the complainant  within 2 months from the  date of this order.
  2. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/ (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony due  to the act of unfair trade practice.
  3. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant as cost of litigation.

        The opposite party shall pay entire amount to the complainant within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order otherwise entire amount  shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till the  date of realisation

Dated this 22nd day of November, 2024.

Sd/-

MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER

Sd/-

MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Witness examined on the side of the complainant                   : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant                  : Ext.A1to A4

Ext. A1: Document is the copy of payment slip for Rs. 38420/- in favour of the

               opposite party by the complainant.

Ext.A2 : Document is the copy of repayment schedule of the loan.

Ext. A3 : Document is the copy of   consumer finance application form.  

Ext. A4 : Document is the copy of first repayment schedule.   

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party                 : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party                : Ext. B1  & B2

Ext. B1: Document is the copy of Statement of Accounts of the complainant.

Ext. B2: Document is the copy of repayment schedule of the loan availed by  the 

              Complainant.

 

 

Sd/-

MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER

Sd/-

MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. MOHANDASAN K]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. MOHAMED ISMAYIL CV]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. PREETHI SIVARAMAN C]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.