Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/653/2010

Darshan Lal S/o Bakhtawar Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Anurag Sharma

15 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                     Complaint No. 653  of 2010.

                                                                                     Date of institution: 14.07.2010.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 15.09.2016

Darshan Lal  aged about 48 years son of Shri Bakhtawar Lal resident of House No. 743, Sham Sunder Puri, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                   …Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. Madhu Hotel Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     …Respondents.  

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Anurag Sharma,  Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. P.K.Kashyap, Advocate, counsel for respondent.   

 

ORDER

 

1.                      Complainant  Darshan Lal  has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986..             

2                      Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant obtained a loan of Rs. 35,000/- from the respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) in the year 2005 which was to be repaid in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs. 1808/- alongwith interest at the rate of 4.5%. The complainant paid 10 installment of Rs. 1808/- per month through cheque total amounting to Rs. 18080/-. Thereafter, in the year 2006 the complainant applied for 2^nd loan of Rs. 60,000/- from the OP which was to be repaid in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs. 2475/- per month including interest at the rate of 3.5% per month as agreed between the complainant and OP but the OP paid only Rs.25,000/- after deducting the entire loan amount already obtained by the complainant in the year 2005. Out of the aforesaid loan amount of Rs. 25,000/-, the complainant paid 23 installments of Rs. 2475/- each to the OP i.e. 10 installments by cheque and 13 installments by cash total Rs. 56,925/- against receipts in addition to the amount already paid against loan obtained in the year 2005. Thereafter, in the year 2008 the Op reduced the installments from Rs. 2475/- to 1530/- per month and complainant paid 13 installments of Rs. 1530/- per month i.e. 11 by cheque and 2 by cash total amounting to Rs. 19890/-. In this way, the complainant paid total amount of Rs. 94,895/- to the OP against loan of Rs. 25,000/- and now nothing is due against him.  However, the complainant was astonished to hear from the official of OP that a sum of Rs. 40909/- is still outstanding against the complainant.  Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP and requested to issue the clearance certificate of the aforesaid loan amount and to return the excess amount, if any, after adjusting the loan amount of Rs. 25,000/- alongwith upto date interest but all in vain.  So, in this way, the act and conduct of the OP was totally illegal, wrong which constitute deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, this complaint.  

3.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; no cause of action arises; there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and on merit it has been submitted that the complainant availed a personal loan of Rs. 35,000/- on 07.10.2005 from the OP vide loan agreement No. 6585228  which was payable in 48 EMIs of  Rs. 1808/- each at the rate of 37% rate of interest. Thereafter, complainant applied for a top up loan of Rs. 60,000/- on or about 15.07.2006 and the same was sanctioned to him vide loan account No. 8974925 repayable in 48 EMIs of Rs. 2475/- each at the rate of interest 24.5% and an amount of Rs. 23,878/- was disbursed to the complainant after deduction of the outstanding amount of Rs. 36,122/- due from the complainant towards the foreclosure of his existing loan vide loan agreement No. 6585228, process fee and other statutory charges and the same was clearly explained to the complainant at the time of sanctioning the said top up loan. It has been submitted that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 27,540/- in discharge of his second loan and denied that the complainant paid total amount of Rs. 94,895/- to the OP against loan of Rs. 25,000/-.  Thus, the complainant is still liable to pay an outstanding amount of Rs. 40,910/- towards the full and final settlement of his account. The OP is ready and willing to issue the NOC alongwith other clearance certificate only when all the outstanding dues are duly cleared by the complainant.  The complainant has filed this false and frivolous case to escape his liability to pay a sum of Rs. 40,910/- to the OP and can be prosecuted under section 26 of CP Act for filing the false and frivolous case against the OP. Hence, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.                     Complainant failed to adduce any evidence, hence his evidence was closed by court order on dated 29.04.2016. However, at the time of filing of complaint, complainant tendered short affidavit and photo copies of documents such as copy of receipts as Annexure A to O, copies of pass book Annexure-1 to Annexure-4, copy of status of status of loan of Darshan Lal dated 03.11.2008 in support of his complaint.    

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Naveen Singla as Annexure RW/A and photo copy of statement of account as Annexure R-1  and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

 7.                    From the perusal of contents of the complaint as well as documents placed on file and after hearing both the parties at length, it is clearly established that dispute between the parties is relating to the account statement. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had already paid the loan amount in excess and nothing is due against the complainant and requested to issue the clearance certificate of the aforesaid loan amount and to return the excess amount, if any, after adjusting the loan amount of Rs. 25,000/- alongwith upto date interest and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.

8                      On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs argued that as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement a correct amount has been charged from the complainant and accordingly an amount of Rs. 40,910/- was outstanding towards the complainant till 11.03.2011 and they are ready and willing to issue NOC/ clearance certificate after depositing of the outstanding amount by the complainant.

9.                   Learned counsel for the OPs referred the case law titled as Omega Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Versus Central Bank of India, 1995(1) CPJ page 1 National Commission Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 21- Complaint alleging charging of excess interest on credits- Date back to 1983-84- Prior to April, 1990- Barred by limitation- Scrutiny of 700 entries involved- Cannot be satisfactorily adjudicated in time bound proceedings under the Act.

10.                  And also further referred the case law titled as Birbhan Goyal Versus ICICI Bank Ltd. 2011(4) CLT page No.611 wherein it has been held that Consumer Protection Act 1986 Section 2(1)(g), 15 and 26- Frivolous complaint- Costs- Banking service- Bank loan- Interest- Floating rate- EMI- Increase in term of EMI- The complainant very well knew that as per the agreement/documents, the rate of interest, on the loan which was taken by him was floating and the EMIs and the period of loan could be varied by the OP from time to time- He also knew that the demand raised by the OP was not illegal and arbitrary and yet he filed a false and frivolous complaint- The District Forum was right in imposing Rs. 10,000/- as costs, under section 26 of the CP Act on the complainant- Order of the District Forum upheld and appeal liable to be dismissed.

11.                 In the present case also it is duly evident that the loan amount in question was disbursed to the complainant in the year 2005 and there are so many entries incorporated in the account statement which cannot be scrutinized in a summary way and to decide such type of cases civil court is the best platform.

12.                 In the circumstances noted above and going through the law cited above titled as Omega Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Versus Central Bank of India and Birbhan Goyal Versus ICICI Bank Ltd (supra), we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP.

13.                  Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit. However, complainant is at liberty to file his complaint before the competent court of law, if so advised. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC page 583. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:  15.09.2016.

 

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                                (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                                MEMBER