Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/714

Amarjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandalam Investment & Finance co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Gaganpreet Singh Adv.

08 Sep 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:714 dated 29.09.2017.

                                                Date of decision: 08.09.2021. 

 

Amarjit Singh aged about 51 years son of S. Gurbax Singh, resident of House No.11, Atam Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                   ..…Complainant

                                       Versus

1. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd., Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its authorized signatory/Manager.

2. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd., # Dare House, 2, NSC, Boss Road, Parrys, Chennai-600001 through its authorized signatory/Manager.                                                                                   …..Opposite parties 

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1996.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Gaganpreet Singh, Advocate

For OPs                         :         Sh. Rishi Bansal, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Brief facts of the case are that the complainant availed two LAP loans from OPs for a sum of Rs.3 Crores vide agreement dated 27.10.2013. The amount was to be repaid in 156 installments. The complainant transferred the loan to some other non banking finance company and settled the amount in the month of June 2015. However, while settling the accounts, the OPs unnecessarily charged the foreclosure charges from the complainant. In loan account No.XOHELIN00001052521, the OPs charged a sum of Rs.5,62,380.24 and in loan account No. XOHELIN000166318, the OPs charged Rs.7,37,636.04 illegally from the complainant. The said amounts were deposited by the complainant under protest. As per the circular dated 05.06.2012 issued by Reserve Bank of India, no bank could charge foreclosure charges on all the floating rate loans. The complainant requested the OPs through emails dated 05.08.2015 and 04.09.2015 to refund the foreclosure charges, but to no avail. On 26.11.2015, the complainant was shocked when he received email whereby they flatly refused to refund the foreclosure charges. A legal notice dated 25.08.2017 served upon the OPs failed to evoke positive response. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.13,00,016.28 obtained as foreclosure charges from the complainant. The complainant has further requested for interest @18% per annum, compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement, inter alia, it has been pleaded that the matter has already been settled between the complainant and the OPs as after filing of the present complaint, an amount of Rs.5,62,380/-  vide cheque No.334130 dated 06.10.2017 in favour of M/s. Top Exports and another amount of Rs.7,37,636/- vie cheque No.334131 dated 06.10.2017 in name of M/s. Top Exports has been refunded to the complainant and these cheques have already been encashed  by the complainant, who gave an undertaking at the time of receiving the cheques that upon clearance of the cheques, he would withdraw all the legal proceedings including the instant case i.e. case No.17/714 dated 29.09.2017. The undertaking in writing is duly signed by the complainant. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. On merits, it has been pleaded that the complainant being proprietor of firm M/s. Top Exports and his son Gurvir Singh availed loan of Rs.3 Crore  vide two loan agreements executed in favour of the OPs by creating equitable mortgage of their properties. It has also been pleaded that the complaint is time barred and is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as other co-borrowers have not been impleaded as party. It has, however, been admitted that the loan was settled by the complainant in the month of June 2015. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C14 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the OPs submitted affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Suresh Rangra, Collection Executive of OPs along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R4 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through records.

6.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the OPs has pointed out that the present complaint is nothing but a gross abuse of process of law. He has further pointed out that the matter has already been settled between the parties and the foreclosure charges have already been refunded to the complainant. The counsel for the OPs has further referred to a letter Ex. R2, which is duly signed by the complainant and in the said letter, it is mentioned that the complainant had received two cheques pertaining to loan account No.XOHELIN00001052521 and loan account No. XOHELIN000166318. It is further mentioned in the letter Ex. R2 that consequent upon the clearance of the cheques, the complainant will withdraw all the legal proceedings including the instant complaint bearing No.17/714 dated 29.09.2017 as there are no dues towards the OPs. The counsel for the complainant could not deny the averments made in letter Ex. R2 executed by the complainant itself. In these circumstances, when the matter has already been settled and the amount of foreclosure charges has already been refunded to the complainant by way of two cheques as mentioned in Ex. R2, the complainant was under an obligation to withdraw the present complaint. Non-withdrawal of the complaint on the part of the complainant is clearly amounts to abuse of process of law and in our considered view, the complainant cannot be proceeded any further.

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.         

8.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:08.09.2021.

Gobind Ram.