Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/191/2022

Deepak Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Tata Capital Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Manoj Kumar Sood

28 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/191/2022
Date of Institution	:	11/2/2022
Date of Decision	:	28/10/2024

 

1. Deepak Gupta S/o Sh. Jaipal Gupta, Resident of House No. 280, Sector 15, Panchkula

2. Anju Gupta w/o Sh. Deepak Gupta, Resident of House No. 280, Sector 15, Panchkula

.Complainants

 

Versus

 

1.   Branch Manager, Tata Capital Limited, SCO 56, IInd floor, Sector 26, Madhya Marg Chandigarh 160035.

2. Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., First Floor, SCO 153, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 160009.

.Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate for complainant.
	:	Ms. Monika, Advocate for OP No.1.
	:	OP No.2 exparte.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

     Briefly stated that the complainant No.1 is partner in Rajesh Sales Corporation which has availed various loans from OP No.1 and the same was repaid by the partnership firm. In year 2013 when complainant No. 1 applied for the personal loan he was surprised to find out that his name was mentioned in CIBIL showing him as defaulter and the name has been forwarded by opposite party No. 1. The complainant No. 1 vide letter dated 19.8.2013 immediately brought this issue to the notice of opposite party No. 1 that he never took loan from them and the loan was taken by Rajesh Sales 3 Corporation which was paid in time and there is no default. The opposite party No. 1 assured complainant No. 1 that they will give the clarification and get the name of complainant No. 1 removed from CIBIL showing as defaulter. The opposite party No. 1 informed the complainant No. 1 that above referred loan is fully repaid and nothing is due. The opposite party No. 2 purchased and took over all loan portfolios from opposite party No. 1 on 31.3.2017 and opposite party No. 1 transferred all the documents regarding previous loan taken from the opposite party No. 1. Since the track record of complainant No. 1 was excellent and opposite party No.2 approached complainant No. 1 to take loan at discounted interest rate as compared to other banks. The complainant No. 1 applied for the loan of Rs. 83.00 lakhs. The opposite party No. 2 disbursed loan to  complainant NO.1 on 10.11.2020 and the complainant paying EMI thereof without any default.  The complainant No. 1 and 2 is constructing house and for construction of the house the complainant No. 1 and 2 applied to opposite party No. 2 for the housing loan and loan was disbursed amounting to Rs. 1,68,75,000/- vide loan account No. HF 38292520. While raising the construction complainants required more capital to complete their house. The complainants were approached by LIC and they assured that they will take over the loan account from opposite party No. 2 and pay total loan amount of Rs. 3.00 crores which include the pre closure of the loan account of opposite party No. 2. The complainants were getting the loan at cheaper rate than the opposite party No. 2, so they decided to shift the loan account from opposite party No. 2 to LIC. The LIC repaid the loan amount of opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 vide email dated 31.8.2021 informed the complainants that loan account No. HF 38292520 stands terminated and loan amount was repaid. After the loan was taken over by the LIC, the harassment at the hands of opposite party No. 2 started. The complainants visited the office of opposite party No. 2 for release of mortgaged property papers, they refuse to release the property papers by making excuses. After three visits when complainants demanded the reason for not releasing the property papers then opposite party No. 2 vide email dated 24.9.2021 informed to complainants that some amount is pending in the name of Rajesh Sales Corporation regarding the loan issued by opposite party No. 1 which remained unpaid. The complainant supplied all the documents to opposite party No. 2 that Rajesh Sales Corporation took three loans from opposite party No. 1 and all were paid in time and nothing is due. Moreover, complainants supplied the letter dated 10.9.2013 to opposite party No. 2 vide which opposite party No. 1 had informed complainants that nothing is due regarding loan taken by Rajesh Sales Corporation. The complainants also brought to the notice of opposite party No. 2 that Rajesh Sales Corporation took the loan of Rs. 1,82,75,000/- vide LAP No. 18305999 from opposite party No. 2 and it was repaid on 25.8.2021 and their property papers were released and at that time no objection was raised by them that the amount is due from Rajesh Sales. When the  grievance of the complainants not redressed  they issued legal notice to opposite party No. 1 and 2. Thereafter the opposite party No. 2 informed the complainant that amount of Rs. 2257/ remained unpaid. The complainant demanded the detail of the amount of Rs. 2257/- vide email dated 7.10.2021. From the detail provide by the opposite party No. 2 complainants came to know that the amount was shown balance of loan account No. 3008279 which Rajesh Sales Corporation took from opposite party No. 1 in year 2008 and amount was repaid and the NOC was issued vide letter dated 10.9.2013(Annexure C-8). The complainants left with  no option paid amount of Rs.2257/ to the opposite party No. 2. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1 its reply stated that the complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant availed the financial services of OP No. 1 for 'Commercial/Business Purpose'. As such, the Complainant is not a 'Consumer' under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The dominant intention/purpose of availing by the Borrowers was for commercial activity and has close and direct nexus with the Profit making activity.  Denying any deficiency on its part all other allegations made in the complaint has been denied being wrong.
3. Since OP No.2 did not turn up to file reply and evidence, hence vide order dated 31.1.2023 it was proceeded against exparte.
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The main grievance of the complainant is that OP No.2 has charged Rs.2257/- illegally, towards the closure of a loan account and release of property papers and his name is shown in the list of defaulter in the CIBIL.
8. On perusal of the reply of the OP No.2, it is observed that it purchased and took over all loan portfolios from OP No.1 on 31.03.2017 and OP No.1 transferred all the documents to OP No.2 regarding previous loan taken from OP No.1. It is observed from the records subsequently the complainant got the loan take over by LIC from OP No.2.  
9. On perusal of Annexure C-6, which is a release letter for business loan from OP No.1 to complainant, it is clearly mentioned “This is to inform you that above referred loan is fully repaid/adjusted”. This is corroborated from the statement of account Annexure C-14, where it is clearly mentioned contract terminated on dated 6.9.2013 and the overdue charges are mentioned as zero.
10. In view of above, we are of the view that nothing was pending from OP No.1 against complainants, when OP No.2 purchased & took over the loan portfolios of the complainants.
11. Significantly, OP No.2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainants and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the OP No.2 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the OP No.2 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainants. Therefore, the assertions of the complainants go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
12. In view of above, by charging Rs.2257/-, OP No.2 have indulged in unfair trade practice and is also deficient in providing service to the complainants.
13. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OP No.2 is directed as under:-

1. to pay ₹2257/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) w.e.f. 26.10.2021.
2. to pay ₹5000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹7000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.
4. to get the CIBIL score corrected, if not got corrected earlier, due to the above said reason only.

14.  This order be complied with by the OP No.2 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, apart from compliance of direction Sr. No.(iii) & (iv).

15. The consumer complaint qua OP No.1 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

16.  Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.

17.  Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			[Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
28/10/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
Ls			Member