Haryana

Karnal

CC/799/2019

Satbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Davinder Singh Chaudhary

26 Oct 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 799 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.03.12.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:26.10.2022

 

Satbir Singh son of Jai Singh, resident of village Sitamai, Sub Tehsil Nigdhu, District Karnal, Aadhar no.909238969977.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Canara Bank through its Manager and Principal Officer Branch at village Sambhli, District Karnal.

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri D.S. Chaudhary, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Manoj Kumar, counsel for the opposite party.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant being unemployed to earn his livelihood approached the OP for financial assistance to purchase the vehicle. The complainant submitted the documents required for the loan purpose and also complied with all the other formalities as directed by the OP. The amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was sanctioned and released to the complainant on 05.11.2011 with account no.1769603003139 having customer ID no.67775812 by which complainant purchase Balero SLX jeep. At the time of advancement of the loan the OP told the complainant that the rate of interest on the loan will be 7% per annum with yearly rests. The complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.3,54,000/- with the OP. The complainant obtained the copy of the account statement pertaining to his loan amount on 01.11.2019. The complainant is surprised to see that inspite of the payment of Rs.3,54,000/- the amount of Rs.5,59,445/- is still outstanding against the complainant. The rate of interest charged by the OP is 14.65% per annum instead of 7% per annum as agreed upon at the time of advancement of the loan by the OP. It is further averred that the jeep of the complainant was met with an accident and it was totally damaged. The complainant by this accident not even suffered a financial loss but also lost the source of his livelihood and has come on the road. The complainant intimated regarding the accident of his vehicle to the OP and OP assured the complainant to consider his request in the payment of the remaining amount of the loan by charging the lesser rate of interest even from 7% per annum. From charging the lesser rate of interest and giving relief in the loan amount due to damage of vehicle, the OP is charging the interest more than double from the agreed rate of interest which is totally illegal, unethical, unfair trade practices and amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant approached the OP to recalculate the amount as per the agreed rate of interest @ 7% per annum instead of 14.65% per annum and the relief announced by the Government of India regarding the waiver of interest etc. but OPs did not listen the request of complainant. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant approached the OP for financial assistance in order to purchase the vehicle jeep. It is admitted that the complainant submitted the documents for the loan purpose and an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was sanctioned and released to the complainant on 05.11.2011 with account no.1769603003139 and complainant had purchased Bolero SLX Jeep. It is also admitted that complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.3,54,000/-. It is pleaded that at the time of advancement of the loan, the complainant had executed the loan/security documents in favour of the OP and in terms of these loan/security documents the complainant had agreed to repay the entire loan amount alongwith interest @ 13.75% per annum with half yearly, which was subject to change from time to time as per directions of the Reserve Bank of India as well as guidelines of Canara Bank, and the complainant had also agreed to pay 2% Penal Rate of interest on overdue amount being claimed by the OP. Entire conditions had also been told by the OP bank to the complainant in simple vernacular. The complainant had further agreed that in case, he does not make repayment of loan amount in terms of the loan/security documents, the OP bank will be entitled to recover the whole outstanding dues with accrued interest and other charges by instituted legal proceedings against him but after becoming defaulter of the OP bank as per repayment schedule, the complainant has filed the present complaint. It is further pleaded that neither any intimation of accident had been given to the complainant nor the complainant approached to the OP after the alleged accident, so the question of assurance of charging the lesser rate of interest @ 7% per annum does not arise at all. It is further pleaded that earlier on 10.08.2018 the OP had instituted a recovery civil suit against the complainant and surety Bhagwan Chand before the court of Shri Dharampal, Civil Judge (JD), Karnal in which the complainant had not appeared, so the complainant was proceeded exparte and finally the suit was decreed exparte with costs against the complainant and his surety Bhagwan Chand. The complainant intentionally and deliberately has not repaid the outstanding amount to the OP. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, statement of account Ex.C1 and closed the evidence on 07.01.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ranjeet Singh Manager Ex.OPW1/A, copy of statement of account Ex.OP1, copy of loan agreement Ex.OP2, copy of loan application Ex.OP3, certified copy of order dated 07.03.2017 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Karnal Ex.OP4, copy of letter regarding DD Ex.OP5, certified copy of NPA Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence on 26.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant has taken a loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from the OP for purchasing of Balero SLX jeep. At the time of advancement of the loan the OP told the complainant that the rate of interest will be 7% per annum. The complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.3,54,000/- with the OP but inspite of the payment of Rs.3,54,000/- the amount of Rs.5,59,445/- is still outstanding against the complainant. The rate of interest charged by the OP is 14.65% per annum instead of 7% per annum as agreed upon at the time of advancement of the loan by the OP.  The jeep of the complainant was met with an accident and it was totally damaged. The complainant intimated regarding the accident of his vehicle to the OP and OP assured the complainant to consider his request in the payment of the remaining amount of the loan by charging the lesser rate of interest but OP failed to do so and charged interest @ 14.65% per annum and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant approached the OP for financial assistance in order to purchase the vehicle jeep and amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was sanctioned. Complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.3,54,000/- with the OP. He further argued that at the time of of advancement of the loan, the complainant had executed the loan/security documents in favour of the OP and in terms of these loan/security documents the complainant had agreed to repay the entire loan amount alongwith interest @ 13.75% per annum with half yearly, which was subject to change from time to time as per directions of the Reserve Bank of India as well as guidelines of Canara Bank. Complainant does not make repayment of loan amount. The OP bank will be entitled to recover the whole outstanding dues with accrued interest.  He further argued that earlier on 10.08.2018 the OP had instituted a recovery civil suit against the complainant and surety Bhagwan Chand and the said suit was decreed exparte with costs against the complainant and his surety Bhagwan Chand, vide order dated 24.01.2019. The complainant intentionally and deliberately has not repaid the outstanding amount to the OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, the complainant has taken a loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from the OP (bank). It is also admitted that complainant had paid Rs.3,54,000-/- to the OP.

11.           As per version of the OP, complainant had agreed to repay the entire loan amount alongwith interest @ 13.75% per annum. On the other hand, as per the version of the complainant the interest rate was @ 7% per annum only. The onus to prove his case lies upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Rather, OP had filed a recovery suit against the complainant and surety Bhagwan Chand in the Civil Court, Karnal and the same has been decreed exparte with costs against the complainant and his surety Bhagwan Chand, vide order dated 24.01.2019 passed by Shri Dharampal Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Karnal.

12.            Thus, as a sequel to aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:26.10.2022                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                          Member                           Member