Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/847/2010

Swaran Singh S/o Gopal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Amit Saini

15 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                     Complaint No. 847  of 2010.

                                                                                     Date of institution: 09.09.2010.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 15.09.2016

Swaran Singh aged about 51 years son of Sh. Gopal Singh, resident of H. No. 1886-A, Patri Mohalla, Near Police Post, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                              …Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. Plot No.8, Vidya Nagar, Govind Puri Road, Near Hotel Daswat-E-Plaza, Yamuna Nagar District Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.
2. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd. Regd. Office 3-LSC, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                …Respondents.  

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Amit Saini,  Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

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

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant  Swaran Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to refund the excess received amount near about Rs.60,000/- on account of interest etc. and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.                 

2                      Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant obtained a house loan from the OPs which was sanctioned on dated 29.06.2006 vide reference No. 8607259 for Rs. 2,75,000/- which was paid to him vide two cheques amounting to Rs. 1,31,293/- each on dated 01.07.2006, so in that way the OPs have disbursed only Rs. 2,62,586/- against the loan of Rs. 2,75,000/-. It has been further mentioned that at that time it was told to the complainant that the rate of interest will be charged at the rate of 12% per annum and loan amount will be repaid in 120 monthly installments of Rs. 3946/-. The official of the Op No.1 also obtained 36 blank cheques alongwith some signed blank papers from the complainant. After that OPs continuously deducted the payments from the account of the complainant. After that, complainant went to the OPs and told them that he wanted to close his loan account. On this, the official of the Ops told to him that he has to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,47,646/- to foreclose his account. The complainant told the officials of the OPs that he has continuously paid the installments and the amount told by them is exorbitant  and requested them to check the amount again but the officials of the OPs said that he has to deposit the same amount otherwise his account could not be foreclosed. In this way, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 2,36,286/- vide demand draft No. 000096 dated 09.07.2010 drawn on Bank of India, Yamuna Nagar. After that, complainant asked to the official of OPs to handover the blank cheques and documents and account statement but the OPs only handed over the account statement pertaining to the account of the complainant. On receiving the account statement, complainant was astonished to see that the terms of loan was unilaterally and arbitrarily increased from 120 to 167 months and also the rate of interest was changed from 12% to 15.95% without prior intimation to the complainant. The account statement further reveals that official of the OPs have deducted an amount of Rs. 4084/- as monthly installments while as per terms and conditions, the installment has to Rs. 3946/-. Even, the OPs continuously deducted Rs. 135/- many times from the account of the complainant. So, in this way, the act and conduct of the OPs was totally illegal, wrong which constitute deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint.   

3.                     Upon notice, Ops 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 OPs and on merit it has been submitted that the complainant availed a Home Equity loan of Rs. 2,75,000/- on 28.06.2006  from the OPs vide loan agreement No. 8607295. The said loan was availed at floating rate of interest repayable in 120 EMIs of Rs. 3946/- each. Hence, the tenure of the said loan was increased to 167 EMIs of Rs. 4146/- each and two cheques of Rs. 1,31,293/- each was disbursed to the complainant after deduction of process fee and other statutory charges. It has been further mentioned that complainant had expressed his desire to foreclosure his loan account, hence he paid Rs. 2,36,286/- and a receipt of the same was issued to the complainant. It has been specifically denied that OPs demanded Rs. 2,47,646/- to foreclose his account and this story has been entirely concocted by the complainant. It has been further mentioned that complainant was duly intimated about the upward change in the rate of interest and the resultant change in the tenure of the loan vide letter dated 21.09.2006, 25.01.2007, 18.07.2008 and 27.08.2008. Lastly, it has been stated that complainant has not put forth the correct material facts and has submitted false and concocted false story in order to mislead the Hon’ble Forum. 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.                     To prove his case, counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant  as  Annexure CX and photo copies of documents such as photo copy of sanction letter dated 29.06.2006 as Annexure C-1, copy of account statement as Annexure C-2, copy of account repayment statement as Annexure C-3, copy of process bulletin as Annexure C-4, copy of payment receipt as Annexure C-5 and C-6, copy of foreclosure letter dated 26.07.2010 as Annexure C-7, copy of pass book as Annexure C-8, copy of account statement of Punjab & Sind Bank as Annexure C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.  

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Shailesh Kumar Sinha as Annexure RW/A and photo copies of documents such as copy of Certificate Annexure R-1, copy of agreement as Annexure R-2,copy of letter dated 21.09.2006 as Annexure R-3, Letter dated 25.01.2007 as Annexure R-4, Letter dated 27.08.2008 as Annexure R-5, copy of letter dated 18.07.2008 as Annexure R-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

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 rate of interest and processing charges etc. i.e. relating to the account statement. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that loan amount was repayable with the rate of interest at the rate of 12% per annum but from the perusal of the account statement it was observed that OPs had charged the rate of interest at the rate of 15.95% per annum and OPs also has increased the EMIs from 120 to 167 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 complainant himself had deposited an amount of Rs. 2,36,286/- vide draft No. 000096 dated 09.07.2010 without any protest and the present complaint has been filed after a period of 2 months from the date of closing his account with the Ops.

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 June 2006 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. Moroever, the complainant had already closed his account and paid the entire amount to the OPs.

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 OPs.

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 having jurisdiction, 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