Date of Filing 29.05.2023

                                                                                                             Date of Disposal: 30.11.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),                                         …….PRESIDENT

               THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL,                                                                                ……MEMBER-I

CC.No.60/2023

THIS THURSDAY, THE 30^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023

Mr.E.Magendiran,

S/o.Ellappa Reddy,

No.75, Nattamaikarar Street,

Gummidipoondi,

Thiruvallur District 601 201.                                                                 ......Complainant.

                                                                              //Vs//

The Manager,

Cholamandalam Investment and

 Finance Company Limited,

No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road,

Parrys, Chennai 600 001.                                                                      …..opposite party.

Counsel for the complainant                               : M/s.J.Loganathan, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite party                           : M/s.K.B.Vivekanandhan, Advocate.

This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 27.11.2023 in the presence of M/s.J.Loganathan, counsel for the complainant and M/s.K.B.Vivekanandhan, counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT.Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service by the demand made by the opposite party towards loan repayment along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. Aggrieved by the excess amount demanded by the opposite party towards loan repayment the present complaint was filed.

3. The complainant availed Tractor Loan from the opposite party vide Loan No. XTRATRR00002296690 for a sum of Rs.5,27,561/- to be repaid in six instalments.  Each instalment amount was fixed at Rs.1,14,120/- and the first instalment was paid on 25.08.2018 and the last instalment ends in February 2021.  Due to Covid-19 the instalment due on 25.08.2020 was not realized by the opposite party.  This instalment was realized on 25.02.2021 and the last instalment was paid on 25.08.2021.  It is submitted that on 25.08.2020 the complainant had sufficient balance in his account but due to the RBI Circular relating to Lock Down the opposite party did not process the ECS. Now the opposite party demanded Rs.23,693/-towards interest. Thus the opposite party without giving due consideration for the RBI guidelines with respect to the moratorium period was demanding interest  and did not issue the NOC in respect of the payment of the entire loan amount.  Thus the present complaint was filed for directing the opposite party to issue NOC along with a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant.

The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-

4. The opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interalia that the opposite party was a non-banking institution providing financial services to its customers for various purposes of loan and was functioning under the guidelines of the RBI.  During the course of business the complainant approached the opposite party for seeking vehicle loan for which they sanctioned loan for a sum of Rs.5,27,561/-and executed a Loan Agreement No.XTRATRR00002296690 dated 25.02.2018.  The complainant agreed to bind by the terms governing the sanction of the loan especially in prompt repayment as per the schedule.  The number of instalments was 6 and first instalment date was 25.08.2018 and the last instalment date was 25.02.2021 and the EMI amount was Rs.1,14,120/-.  The complainant was liable to pay the outstanding amount in respect of the loan account.  As there was outstanding amount in the loan account the opposite party issued a demand notice on 17.03.2022 to pay the due amount.  Without responding to the notice and repaying the amount due, the complainant issued notice on 27.10.2022 with false averments demanding No Due Certificate for which the opposite party issued suitable reply on 17.11.2022.  Further in the reply notice it has been clarified that since the outstanding amount was pending clearance certificate could not be issued.  As on 23.08.2023 the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.30,040/- to the opposite party. The relationship between the complainant and the opposite party was a debtor and creditor based upon the loan agreement entered into by the complainant with the opposite party.  Hence the complainant could not be termed as a Consumer within the purview of section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act.  Further the complainant had availed loan and had entered into a Loan Agreement with the opposite party.  If any breach in terms of the contract is to be held, this Hon’ble Commission does not has jurisdiction as all the disputes, differences and claims has to be dealt under Arbitration. It was submitted that the complainant failed to understand the guidelines of moratorium of Covid 19 regulatory package issued by the RBI with reference to RBI/2019-20/186 DOR.No.BP.BC.47/21.04.048/2019-20 in which it has been clearly mentioned that the interest shall be accrued and the terms of agreement shall not be changed. The complainant was very much aware that there was pending outstanding due in the form of overdue charges and other charges and also that No Due Certificate could not obtained without clearing the outstanding amount. However, to avoid clearing the outstanding amount, the complainant has intentionally filed the false complaint and thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

5. On the side of complainants proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A5 were submitted. On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 were submitted.

Points for consideration:-

1. Whether the complaint allegations with respect to charging additional interest illegally by the opposite party for the loan availed by the complainant for the purchase of Tractor vide Loan Agreement No. XTRATRR00002296690 dated 25.02.2018 has been successfully proved as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the complainant by admissible evidence?

2) If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

 Point No.1:-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of their contentions;

1. Letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant towards repayment schedule dated 27.02.2018 was marked as Ex.A1;
2. Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 27.10.2022 was marked as Ex.A2;
3. Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery was marked as Ex.A3;
4. Reply notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 30.08.2022  was marked as Ex.A4;
5. Statement of Account of the complainant  was marked as Ex.A5;

The following documents were filed on the side of opposite party in support of their defence;

6. Loan agreement executed by the complainant and the opposite party dated 25.02.2018 was marked as Ex.B1;
7. Notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 17.03.2022 was marked as Ex.B2;
8. Notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 30.08.2022 was marked as Ex.B3;
9. Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 27.10.2022 was marked as Ex.B4;
10. Reply notice issued by the opposite party dated 17.11.2022 was marked as Ex.B5;
11. Loan Account Statement was marked as Ex.B6;

            6. Heard both learned counsels and it was submitted during arguments by both the parties that they would settle the matter.  However, inspite of sufficient opportunities provided to both of them no settlement was arrived between them and today there was no representation for both parties and hence we are constrained to pass the following order on merits.

7. The complainant argued that as per the Loan Agreement and the admitted terms and conditions he had paid the entire loan amount in 6 installments.  However, the opposite party during Covid-19 period did not realize the loan instalment i.e. EMI scheduled on 25.08.2020 inspite of sufficient balance available in the complainant’s account later on the loan instalment was paid on 25.08.2021.  Also it was argued that the opposite party failed to consider the RBI guidelines with respect to moratorium announced during Covid-19 Lock down and was charging interest for the unpaid instalments illegally.  Thus the complaint sought for No Due Certificate from the opposite party along with compensation.

8. On the other hand the opposite party fairly admitted that all dues have been paid.  However, as one due was paid belatedly as an 23.08.2023 it was stated that there is a due on interest amount of Rs.30,040/- to be paid by the complainant and hence submitted that if the said amount is paid by the complainant they would issue “No Due Certificate” to the complainant.

9. On perusal of the pleadings and evidence, we could find that as per Ex.A5 the Statement of Accounts belonging to complainant’s Bank Account in Indian Bank, Gummidipoondi Branch Account No.498205206 as on 24.08.2020 the credit balance shows Rs.1,15,574.03/-.  It is an admitted fact by both parties that the due date for EMI is 25.08.2020. Therefore, it is crystal clear that inspite of sufficient amount in the complainant’s account the opposite party failed to realize the EMI.  This fact has been clearly mentioned in the notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party on 27.10.2022 wherein it has been provided as follows;

“Nfhuhdh -19 Neha;fhyj;jpy; NkNy Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s 6 khj fhyj;jpy; ve;j jtizAk; t#ypf;f $lhJ vd;W RBI $wpapUe;j fhuzj;jpdhy; jhq;fs; vdJ fl;rpf;fhuhuupd; tq;fp fzf;fpy; 25.08.2020 vd;w Njjpapy; jtizj; njhif ,Ug;G ,Ue;j NghjpYk; jq;fspd; epjp epWtdk; jtizj; njhifia vLf;ftpy;iy.  vdJ fl;rpf;fhuu; ifNgrpapy; jq;fspd; epjp epWtdj;jpy; cs;s jtiz t#ypg;gtu;fis njhlu;G nfhz;L jdJ tq;fp fzf;fpy; jtizj; njhif ,Ug;G cs;sJ vLj;Jf;nfhs;Ss;fs; vd;W $wpdhu;> ,Ue;Jk; jq;fspy; epjp epWtdj;jhu; 25.08.2020 md;W jtizj; njhifia ngw;Wf;nfhs;stpy;iy vd;gNj cz;ik.

vdJ fl;rpf;fhuu; jtizj; njhifia Kiwahf nrYj;jpa epiyapy; RBI mwptpj;j COVID-19 Neha; fhuzkhf (Moratorium Period) 01.03.2020 to 31.08.2020 (MW khjk; /184 ehl;fs;) tiu ve;j jtiziaAk; t#ypf;f $lhJ vd;W nrhy;ypa epiyapy; jhq;fs; 25.08.2020 Njjp jtizia vLf;fhJ tpLj;J jw;NghJ me;j njhiff;F tl;bf;F tl;bAk; kw;Wk; ,ju nrytpdq;fisAk; Nru;j;J nkhj;jk; &23>693/- njhifia nrYj;j $WtJ rl;lj;jpw;F Kudhd nrayhFk;.”

Thus it is sufficiently proved by the complainant by admissible evidence that the opposite party had failed to process the ECS towards EMI amount on the particular date i.e. 25.08.2020.  Also the complainant has rightly pointed out that no interest could be charged from the customers for the period of 6 months i.e. from 01.03.2022 to 31.08.2022 as per the RBI guidelines.  Thus it is proved that the claim of Rs.30,040/- towards interest for the unpaid EMI is clearly against the said RBI guidelines and hence with holding the NOC towards the loan availed by complainant even after repayment of the entire loan transaction,  amounts to clear deficiency in service.  Thus we hold the point in affirmative and infavour of the complainant holding that the complaint allegations as to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party has been successfully proved by complainant.

Point No.2:-

10. With regard to the relief to be granted we direct the opposite party to issue No Due Certificate with respect to Loan Agreement No.XTRATRR00002296690 within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Further for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficient act of the opposite party we award a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant.  We also award Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party directing him

a) To issue No Due Certificate for the Loan Agreement No.XTRATRR00002296690 to the complainant within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

b) To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant;

 c) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 30^th day of November 2023.

   Sd/-                                                                                                                            Sd/-                                                                              

MEMBER-I                                                                                                           PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

    Sd/-                                                                                                                        Sd/-

MEMBER-I                                                                                                         PRESIDENT