Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1151/2010

Som Pal S/o Kabool Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Fullerton India Credit Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ram Parshad

05 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                              Complaint No. 1151  of  2010.

                                                                                              Date of institution: 03.12.2010

                                                                                              Date of decision:05.07.2016.

Som Pal aged about 45 years son of Sh. Kabool Chand resident of Village Rattanpura, Post Office Pansara, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd. Branch Office Near Telephone Exchange, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.
2. Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd. Building No.11, First Floor Soltaire Corporation park, Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road, Chakale Anheri (East) Mumbai-400093 through its Managing Director.

                                                                                                                                           … Respondents. 

 

                         

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Ram Parshad, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Nalin Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondents. 

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Som Pal filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking directions to the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) to issue NOC and refund the excess amount alongwith interest as well as compensation and litigation expenses. 

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant obtained a personal loan of Rs. 37541/- from the OP No.1 which was paid to him vide cheque  bearing No. 219673 dated 13.08.2008 drawn on ICICI Bank. The said loan was repayable in 24 installments of Rs. 2339/- each. The OP No.1 had taken 9 undated cheques bearing No. 445511 to 445519 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank from the complainant as security. The complainant paid first 6 installments through cheques bearing No. 445511 to 445516 and remaining 21 installments in cash against proper receipt. In this way the complainant paid  27 installments of Rs. 2339/- total amounting to Rs. 63153/- against the loan to the OPs. After paying the installments, the complainant approached the Ops to release the remaining three cheques and issue NOC i.e. No Objection Certificate but the OPs told to the complainant that 9 installments are pending as due against him. Further the complainant also came to know that loan amount has been shown as 33% at flat rate which is totally illegal exuberantly and even the number of installments has also been shown as 36 installments instead of 24 installments. In this way, the act and conduct of the OPs is totally illegal which constitute deficiency in service on their part. The complainant requested so many times to the OPs to rectify the same but all in vain. Hence this complaint.

3.                     In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CX and documents such as photo copy of cheque dated 13.08.2008 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of account statement of his bank as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of 21 receipts of depositing installments as Annexure C-4 to C-14 and closed his evidence.

4.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement jointly by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; OPs Company is a financier company duly licensed issued by the RBI and borrow the money from the various sources on agreed rate of interest and lend it to its needy customer on agreed rate of interest with minimum margin; no cause of action; no locus standi; without jurisdiction; complainant is willful defaulter and his account become irregular and to defeat the proceedings likely to be initiated against him; filed the present false complaint and on merit it has been admitted that complainant approached the OPs and applied for personal loan of Rs. 42000/- and the same was disbursed to him on 11.08.2008 which was repayable in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs. 2339/- and rate of interest was agreed at the rate of 16% per annum on reducing balance as per agreement. It has been further admitted that complainant has paid total 27 installments against the repayment of abovesaid loan, however, 9 installments are still pending against him as there was 36 installments instead of 24 installments as has been alleged by the complainant in his complaint. As the complainant is defaulter of the OPs Company. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as alleged.

5.                     In support of their version, the counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence photo copy of agreement as Annexure R-1 & R-2, Photo copy of demand promissory Note as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of account statement as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of receipt of processing charges as Annexure R-5, Photo copy of letter dated 11.08.2008 as Annexure R-6, Photo copy of declaration of Som Pal as Annexure R-7 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 carefully and minutely.

7.                     From the perusal of loan Agreement as Annexure R-1 and R-2 and photo copy of demand promissory note Annexure R-3 and further from the copy of account statement Annexure R-4, it is clearly evident that complainant obtained a loan of Rs. 42000/- which was repayable in 36 monthly installments of Rs. 2339/- each, So, the plea of the complainant that he had obtained a loan of Rs. 37541/- from the OPs is not tenable. No doubt only an amount of Rs. 37541/- was disbursed to the complainant vide cheque No. 219673 dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure C-1) but the learned counsel for the OPs draw our attention towards the letter Annexure R-5 and R-6 and argued that after deducting some amount on account of documentation charges, loan processing charges and insurance charges an amount of Rs. 37541/- was released out of sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 42000/- to the complainant. Further the plea of the complainant that an amount of Rs. 37541/- was sanctioned as personal loan which was repayable in 24 monthly installments of Rs. 2339/- is also not tenable as from the perusal of documents Annexure R-1 to R-4 filed by the OPs it is clearly evident that total amount of Rs. 42000/- was sanctioned as a loan which was repayable in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs. 2339/-. The complainant has not filed any cogent evidence in support of his version that the loan amount was repayable in 24 installments instead of 36 installments. Further, the version of the complainant is also not tenable that nothing was due against him i.e. he  was not defaulter of the OPs company because from the perusal of the account statement filed by the OPs (Annexure R-4) it is evident that an amount of Rs. 23876/- was due against the complainant till 07.02.2011. However it is not disputed that complainant paid 27 installments total amounting Rs.63153/- through six (6) cheques and vide receipts which is evident from the photocopy of Receipt Annexure C-4 to Annexure C-14 and further from account statement Annexure C-2

8.                     However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards the account statement of his bank account with Indian Overseas Bank (Annexure C-2) from which an amount of Rs. 21000/- has been withdrawn by the Ops through cheque No. 445518 on 22.01.2013 during the pendency of this complaint and argued that the OPs has withdrawn this amount as full and final settlement, however, despite of that the Ops Company has not issued the NOC and also not returned the two remaining cheques to the complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs Sh. Nalin Gupta was unable to explain that on what account, an amount of Rs. 21000/- has been withdrawn by the OPs through cheque No. 445518 on 22.01.2013 from the account of the complainant, during the pendency of this complaint. The counsel for the Ops told to the Forum that the official of the OPs Company are not in touch with him from the last 2-3 years as the office of OP Company had been shifted from Yamuna Nagar. So, he is not in a position to disclose that on what account this amount of Rs. 21000/- has been withdrawn.

9                      As the Ops Company has withdrawn an amount of Rs. 21000/- on 22.01.2013 during the pendency of this complaint through cheque No. 445518 from the bank account of the complainant and as per account statement Annexure R-4, there was a balance of Rs. 23876/- against the complainant. So, prima facie it seems that the OPs Company has settled the account of the complainant as full and final settlement otherwise there was no reason to withdraw the particular amount of Rs. 21000/- by way of cheque by the OPs Company.

10.                   In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the complainant has repaid entire loan amount of Rs. 42000/- with interest etc i.e. Rs. 84153/- (Rs.63153/- + Rs.21000/-) to the OPs Company which was to be repaid by the complainant in 36 monthly installments of Rs. 2339/- as per agreement. But the OPs Company has failed to issued NOC/ Clearance Certificate (No Objection Certificate) and further has not returned the two blank cheques bearing No. 445517 and 445519 despite withdrawing the amount of Rs.21000/- through cheques from the account of the complainant on 22.01.2013, till date, which constitute a deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, we have no option except to partly allow the complaint of complainant.

11.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs to issue NOC (No Objection Certificate) to the complainant and to return two blank cheques bearing No. 445517 & 445519 within a period of 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order and further the OPs Company is also directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- as compensation and Rs 2000/- litigation expenses.  This order shall be complied within a period of 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. The parties concerned be communicated with a copy of this order free of cost accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 05.072016.

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER