DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Govt. House No.16-D, Civil Station, Near SSP Residence, BATHINDA- 151001, PUNJAB.
CC No.487 of 2014
Date of Institution: 07.08.2014 Date of Disposal : 06.05.2015
Mohinder Singh aged 50 years S/o Kesar Singh S/o Phagan Singh R/o Q.No.1067, Thermal Colony, Bathinda.
........Complainant.
Versus
Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd. Floor 5 & 6, Wing Supreme IT Park, Supreme City, Behind Lake Castle Powai, Mumbai, through its MD/DM/Incharge.
Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd., First Floor No.2749, Goniana Road, Opposite Zila Parishad Office, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
............
Present:-
For complainant : Sh.Kulwant Singh Gill, Advocate.
For OPs : Sh.H.S.Sidhu, Advocate.
Quorum:-
Sh.Surinder Mohan, President.
Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.
Contd........2
: 2 :
ORDER:-
Surinder Mohan, President
Brief facts of the cse are that the complainant took loan of Rs.3,14,948/- vide loan account No.054425400001750 from OPs on 19.11.13 and paid the installment of Rs.10,498/- per month. At the time of taking the loan, OPs agreed interest @14% p.a. At the time of releasing the above said loan, OPs obtained the signatures of complainant on blank forms, vouchers and agreement with the assurance that the same will be filled as per rules and regulations of RBI, but OPs did not supply him the copy of loan agreement and other papers till date, although the same is mandatory. Complainant paid an amount of Rs.62,988/- in 6 installments. On 4.6.14, complainant approached the office of OPs to deposit 6th installment and enquired about the loan, but they told him that remaining loan amount is Rs.2,93,084.74 and interest thereon. Complainant paid all the installments in time and at that time the rate of interest was fixed @14% p.a., but without any intimation and without any prior consent and with malafide intention OP No.1 increased the rate of interest. Opposite parties have charged huge interest on the loan amount which is illegal and against the rules of RBI from which they have obtained the licence to run their business. All the abovesaid acts and conduct of OPs are totally illegal. Complainant many times requested OPs to charge the interest as per the rules of RBI, but they did not listen to him. OPs threatened the complainant to deposit the whole amount, otherwise they will recover the amount by illegal means. Complainant is ready to pay whole amount with interest, but on the rate of actual interest i.e. @14% p.a. Complainant got issued a legal notice upon OPs, but they gave the reply to the legal notice on wrong facts. There is Contd........3
: 3 :
deficiency in service on the part of OPs as they have failed to provide services to the complainant by charging excess rate of interest. OPs are service oriented company to provide services to their customers. Due to act and conduct of OP No.1, complainant has been suffering mental agony and pain for which he is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-, besides interest @18% p.a. on the extra payment deposited with OPs. Complainant is also entitled for litigation costs to the extent of Rs.11,000/-. Complaint is supported by a short affidavit of Mohinder Singh.
2. In reply OPs have taken several preliminary objections that present complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and malafide; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of replying OPs; complainant has wrongly and with malafide intention filed this complaint in order to cause wrongful loss to OPs and wrongfully gain from same; that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts and mislead this Forum.
3. It is admitted that OPs are in the business of finance. Complainant approached OPs to avail the loan. On the basis of documents and representation of complainant, a loan of Rs.3,14,948/- was granted and disbursed to him on mutually agreed terms and conditions. It is denied that the loan amount was Rs.3,14,000/- or agreed rate of interest was 14% p.a. Perusal of loan agreement and demand promissory note clearly reveal that complainant accepted and availed the loan amount of Rs.3,14,948/- at agreed rate of interest of 24.77% per annum. Complainant further agreed to repay the loan amount alongwith agreed rate of interest in 48 equated monthly installments (EMI) of Rs.10,498/- payable on 4th day of every month. Complainant had signed the loan agreement after understanding its Contd.........4
: 4 :
terms and conditions. It is denied that any paper was got signed by OPs in blank. Loan agreement and demand promissory note clearly depict that the documents are typed documents and cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that they were blank at the time of signing by complainant. A complete copy of loan agreement alongwith all other relevant documents were supplied to complainant after obtaining the signatures of both the parties. The complainant is continuous defaulter in paying his installments as per agreed repayment schedule. Complainant was aware about the terms and conditions of the loan agreement from the very inception of loan agreement. Contents of Para Nos.7 of complaint are totally false and against the record and denied as OPs increased/enhanced the rate of interest as per the agreed terms and conditions of the loan agreement between the parties. It is denied that OPs have done anything illegal or have ever threatened the complainant in any way. OPs did not violate any rule of RBI. Complainant can foreclose his loan account after paying necessary charges and as per agreed rate of interest @24.77% p.a. Complainant cannot claim that he is entitled to pay interest @14% p.a. that is not acceptable to OPs. It is further denied that OPs are deficient in providing service. It is admitted that OPs are service oriented company but complainant has no valid cause-of-action in its favour to invoke jurisdiction of this Forum. It is denied that OPs ever charged any extra interest than agreed to. Other Paras of complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of complaint. Written version has been supported by an affidavit of Mohit Jain, Legal Manager of FICCL of opposite parties.
4. Complainant has led evidence to support his allegations. He has produced Ex.C1 Copy of legal notice dated 1.7.14 alongwith postal Contd..........5
: 5 :
receipts; Ex.C2 Copy of account statement; Ex.C3 Copy of enquiry report dated 11.6.14; Ex.C4 Copy of Foreclosure Charges Calculator; Ex.C5 Copy of cancelled cheque and Ex.C6 Copy of letter dated 21.7.14 sent by lawyers of Calcutta in reply to legal notice.
5. On the other hand OPs have tendered into evidence Ex.OP1/1 affidavit of Mohit Jain (AR), Ex.OP1/2 loan Agreement dated 16.11.13, Ex.OP1/3 Demand Promissory Note dated 16.11.13 and Ex.OP1/4 Account Statement as on 21.1.15.
6. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the file.
7. Before proceedings further it may be pointed out that the complainant has not tendered his complete affidavit supporting his allegations made in the complaint. The complainant has attached only a short affidavit and same was also not tendered. Even a short affidavit is not a legal evidence as has been held by Hon'ble Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case titled as S.Kumar Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr., reported in III (2005) CPJ 642, wherein Hon'ble Union Territory Commission, Chandigarh was pleased to observe that:
“Absence of legal evidence in support of claim-Complainant instead of leading proper evidence merely deposed that contents in complaint be read as evidence by way of affidavit-Such affidavit cannot be treated as legal evidence, no reliance can be place on mere pleadings contained in complaint”
In this case the complainant has taken the plea that his Contd.........6
: 6 :
signatures were taken on blank forms, such a plea cannot be accepted. The complainant is an educated person and had put his signatures in English. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Grasim Industry Limited Vs. Aggarwal Steel, reported in 2009 (III) Apex Judgment 654, has been pleased to held that:
“A person signing a document is presumed to have signed after reading and understanding the documents properly unless there is proof of force or fraud”.
9. Perusal of documents reveal that the complainant entered into an agreement on 16.11.2013, which is Ex.OP1/2 on file. This agreement is signed by complainant, but he has nowhere denied his signatures on this agreement. In the loan agreement it is clearly mentioned in Clause 1.2 that Borrower(s) shall pay interest on the loan amount at the rate specified in the Loan Summary Schedule. Loan Summary Schedule is a part of loan agreement, which is signed by complainant and it reveals loan amount of Rs.3,14,948/- and rate of interest @ 24.77 % p.a compounded with monthly rest and term of loan was 48 months. Repayment schedule further reveals that installments were to be paid by 4th day of every month and monthly installment was Rs.10,498/-. Repayment schedule is also signed by complainant. Ex.OP1/3, is Demand Promissory Note dated 16.11.13, which is again signed by complainant and it also shows the rate of interest as Rs. 24.77% p.a. compounded with monthly rest for the value received. Ex.OP1/4, Account Statement also shows that 4 cheques of complainant bounced on 4.2.14, 4.7.14, 4.8.14 and 4.9.14 due to 'insufficient funds'. Complainant himself agreed to pay interest @24.77% p.a. compounded with Contd.........7
: 7 :
monthly rest. It cannot be said that he agreed to pay interest @ 14% p.a. We find no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties towards the complainant.
10. Resultantly, there is no merit in the complaint and the same stands dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
11. Let certified copies of order be communicated to the parties free of cost by registered post and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced:
06.05.2015
Jarnail Singh, Sukhwinder Kaur , Surinder Mohan,
Member. Member. President.
