Date of Filing : 29.01.2021
Date of Disposal : 29.07.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A.,B.L., ......MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,B.Com. ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.11/2021
THIS FRIDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JULY 2022
1.Mr.A.R.Elumalai,
2.Tmt.E.Saraswathi,
both are residing at No.6/21 NSK Street,
Ambattur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. ……Complainants.
//Vs//
The Manager,
Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Private Limited,
No.2 N.S.C Bose Road,
Parrys, Chennai 600 001. ..........Opposite party.
Counsel for the complainants : U.Sowmya, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite party : M/s.K.B.Vivekanandhan, Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 13.07.2022 and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both parties , this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainants u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to give credit to the 38 instalments paid by the complainant and to cancel the endorsement of hypothecation agreement and to pay a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the mental agony along with Rs.10,000/- cost of this proceedings.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
The complainants purchased Maximo bearing registration No.TN-18-AH-6152 by availing a loan of Rs.3,71,679 from the opposite party vide agreement No.XVFPCPU00001752576. It was agreed by the complainant that by 38 instalments the entire loan amount with interest would be repaid. It was submitted by the complainants that after the entire instalments were paid by them commencing from 28.07.2016 to 28.08.2019 the opposite party issued a notice demanding a sum of Rs.25,864/- payable towards EMI outstanding, additional interest of Rs.458/- and another sum of Rs.3322/- towards cheque bounce and other charges, altogether Rs.29,601/- for which the complainants issued a reply but in receipt of the same a reminder letter dated 08.07.2020 was issued by the opposite party demanding a sum of Rs.35,861/- to be payable towards the loan. When the complainants approached the opposite party’s office, their staff informed that the instalments to be paid were 40 whereas actual instalments were only 38. Thus aggrieved the present complaint was filed for the following reliefs;
1. To give credits to the entire 38 instalments paid by the complainant and to cancel the endorsement of hypothecation agreement as loan paid entirely.
2. To pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant for the mental agony, hardships and deficiency in service;
3. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the cost of this proceedings.
Defence of the opposite party:
The opposite party filed written version disputing the complaint averments contending interalia that a sum of Rs.3,71,679/- was obtained as loan by the complainants in respect of purchase of the vehicle i.e., MAXIMO, bearing Registration No.TN 18 AH 6152 and the complainants had agreed to repay the loan amount with interest in 38 instalments without any delay or default and also hypothecated the vehicle in favour of the opposite party. It is submitted that the complainants had not repaid all the instalments and also did not pay the instalments as agreed and that the complainants had suppressed certain facts in the complaint. It is further stated that the statement of account produced by them would clearly shows that there was outstanding amount to be paid by the complainants. Thus it is submitted that further a sum of Rs.45,030/- as on 06.08.2021 was to be paid to the opposite party. Thus the opposite party submitted that the complainants had committed default in the payment of EMI which attracted penal charges and additional interest to the loan obtained by the complainants and thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
On the side of complainants proof affidavit was filed and documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B5.
Point for consideration:
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in requesting an additional amount of Rs.45,030/- even after the entire loan amount was repaid by the complainant and if so to what relief the complainant is entitled?
Point:
On the side of the complainants the following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;
Notice issued by the opposite party dated 13.11.2019 to the complainants requesting for payment of Rs.29,601/- was marked as Ex.A1;
Reply notice issued by the complainants along with the payment particulars to the opposite party was marked as Ex.A2;
The notice issued by the opposite party as a reminder to pay an amount of Rs.35,861/- dated 08.07.2020 was marked as Ex.A3;
The reply dated 29.07.2020 given by the complainants to the opposite party stating that all the 38 installments had been paid as agreed and hence there is no balance to be paid by the complainants was marked as Ex.A4;
Acknowledgement card was marked as Ex.A5;
The Bank statement of the complainants for the dated commencing from 07.04.2016 to 22.09.2016 was marked as Ex.A6;
On the side of the opposite party the following documents were filed in support of their contention;
The repayment schedule dated 06.08.2021 was marked as Ex.B1;
The Account Statement was marked as Ex.B2 which reveals the loan repayment made by the complainants was found;
The notice issued by the opposite party requesting the complainants to pay an amount of Rs.29,601/- dated 13.11.2019 was marked as Ex.B3;
The reminder dated 18.07.2020 issued by the opposite party to the complainants to pay a sum of Rs.35,861/- was marked as Ex.B4;
The further notice dated 23.12.2020 requesting the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.39816/- was marked as Ex.B5;
In spite of sufficient opportunities given on various dates the counsel for the complainants did not turn up before this commission for making oral arguments and hence no oral arguments were made on the side. However the opposite party appeared and represented that their written arguments may be treated as oral arguments. Thus this Commission decided to consider the written arguments filed by the complainants as oral arguments on their side to decide the issue on merits. Hence we considered both sides written arguments to decide the points for consideration.
The written arguments filed by the complainant stated that the complainants leads his livelihood based on the income earned form the Maxi Cab on daily basis and that he purchased the Maxximo vehicle by availing a loan an amount of Rs.3,71,679/- from the opposite party. It is submitted that all the 38 instalments had been repaid but still the opposite party demands an additional amount of Rs.29,601/- by issuing a notice dated 13.11.2019 and also further issued a reminder notice without verifying the records and the Statement of Accounts which amounted to deficiency in service on their part, thus the complainants prayed to give credit to the 38 instalments paid by them and to cancel the endorsement of hypothecation agreement and to pay a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the mental agony along with Rs.10,000/- cost of this proceedings.
The written arguments filed by the opposite party stated that the repayment schedule produced as document No.B1 would go to show that the complainants had committed default in the repayment of instalments contrary to the agreed terms in the loan agreement. Further the Statement of Account maintained by the opposite party bank clearly shows the outstanding amount to be paid by the complainants. Thus it is stated that a further amount of Rs.45,030/- was to be paid by the complainants to the opposite party for closer of the loan and they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
We perused the documents produced by both parties and appreciated the written arguments submitted by them. It is seen that even as per the document Ex.A1 submitted by the complainants certain instalments had been paid with delay and also for certain instalments the cheque got bounced and an amount of Rs.590/- has been levied on several dates towards cheque bounced charges. The statement of account produced by the opposite party (Ex.B2) clearly shows the default committed by the complainants and hence due to the defaults the complainants are liable to pay the default instalments altogether with the penal charges and additional interest. Further it is stated by the opposite party that the delay in payment of instalments would also attract additional interest. In such circumstances when the complainants had agreed to repay the EMIs on particulars dates but they have defaulted on certain instalments. In such circumstances the additional amount claimed by the opposite party towards cheque bounces charges and penal charges could not be considered as improper. When facts stood such, the opposite party issued the notice claiming the additional payments to be paid by the complainant. Hence it is to be concluded that there is no deficiency in service on their part in issuing the notice. The complainant’s allegation that the entire loan amount has been repaid and hence the request for additional amount is not proper could not be entertained for the reason that it is the evident that as per the Statement of Accounts produced by the complainant himself admittedly there are certain defaults in the EMIs. Hence this Commission concludes that the complainant is not entitled to any relief. Thus we answer the point accordingly holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in claiming the additional amount from the complainant even after the entire 38 instalments had been paid by the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
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 the 29th day of July 2022.
Sd- Sd- Sd-
MEMBER-II MEMEBR-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainants:-
Ex.A1 13.11.2019 Notice sent by the opposite party to the complainants Xerox
Ex.A2 ........... Reply notice issued by the complainants to the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A3 08.07.2020 Notice issued by the opposite party to the complainants. Xerox
Ex.A4 29.07.2020 Reply notice issued by the complainants to the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A5 ............ Acknowledgement card. Xerox
Ex.A6 .............. Bank pass book of the complainant. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite party:
Ex.B1 06.08.2021 Repayment schedule. Xerox
Ex.B2 06.08.2021 Account Statement. Xerox
Ex.B3 13.11.2019 Notice issued by the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.B4 08.07.2020 Notice issued by the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.B5 24.12.2020 Notice issued by the opposite party. Xerox
Sd- Sd- Sd-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
