Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/115

Shri Pal Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

fullerton India Credit Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Singh Adv.

25 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 115 of 25.02.2015

   Date of Decision            :  25.09.2017

 

Shri Pal Bansal age 50 years son of Sh. Om Parkash Bansal, resident of H.No.5233, St. No.2, New Shivaji Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                            Versus       

 

1.Fullerton India Credit Company Limited, Jagdambay Complex, SCO Building Number 4788, Main Haibowal Road, First Floor, Near D.M.C.Hospital, Ludhiana.

2. Fullerton India Credit Company Limited, Jagdambay Complex, SCO Building No.4788, Main Haibowal Road, First Floor, Near D.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana, through its authorized signatory , Manager through its representative.

3. Fullerton India Credit Company Limited, First Floor, SCO-19, Sector-32-A, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana through its authorized signatory/representatives.

4. Fullerton India Credit Company Limited, 3^rd Floor, Old No.307, New No.165, Megh Towers Poonmalee High Road, Maduravoyal, Chennai, Registered Office.

5. Fullerton India Credit Company Limited, 3^rd Floor, Old No.307, New No.165, Megh Towers Poonmalee High Road, Maduravoyal, Chennai, Registered Office, through its authorized signatory, Manager through its representatives. 

..Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant               :         Sh.Sandeep Sethi, Advocate

For OPs                           :         Sh.Anand Sabherwal, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                           Complainant on assurance of representatives of Ops to the effect that Ops provides the best services on reasonable rate of interest, requested Ops for contracting personal loan of Rs.3,27,900/- vide loan account No.006715600002610,  customer ID No.4353476. At the time of availing loan, Ops never asked for charging privilege program club fee or general insurance premium. Rather, Ops assured the complainant as if minimum 1% only will be charged as disbursement charges on the personal loan taken by the complainant. At the time of disbursement of personal loan, representatives of Ops took nine blank signed security cheques from the complainant bearing Nos.000084 to 000092 drawn at Bank of Baroda, Samrala Road Branch, Ludhiana. Even complainant signed on ECS transfer of Rs.14,525/- per month. After availing the above said personal loan of Rs.3,27,900/-, complainant requested the representatives of Ops to disclose the rate of interest charged by their banker, but they failed to disclose the rate of interest. This rate of interest not disclosed despite repeated visits by the complainant to the branch office of Haibowal, Ludhiana of Ops. Complainant had been paying the installments regularly in time. It is claimed that representative of complainant got gratification of Rs.10,000/- from him at the time of disbursal of loan regarding which, complaint No.01272536 through request ID No.01187542 was lodged by the complainant on Toll Free No.18003016001. Complainant even met Sh.Rajiv Khandelwal and Ankur Gupta, the Branch Manager/representative, but till date, no action taken against the bank officials for taking gratification and misguiding complaint. It is claimed that Ops have not charged the rate of interest as per guidelines issued by RBI. Rather, Ops deducted unnecessary charges at the time of disbursement of loan to the complainant. Ops threatened the complainant on his mobile. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, prayer made for directing Ops to refund the excessive charged rate of interest and to pay compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2.                 In joint written reply submitted by Ops, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is not maintainable being false, frivolous and vexatious; complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands because he has suppressed the material facts; complainant does not disclose any cause of action; no prima facie case exists in favour of complainant, particularly when the complaint has been filed with some oblique motive  for putting forth certain illegal demands. Besides, it is claimed that complainant is not a consumer as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’), due to which, he has no locus standi. Admittedly, complainant availed the personal loan of Rs.3,46,500/- by agreeing to repay the loan amount in 36 EMIs of Rs.14,525/- along with interest @28.01% per annum. As per the terms and conditions settled between the parties, an amount of Rs.3,27,900/- was disbursed to the complainant on 17.6.2013 after deducting Rs.9382/- as loan documentation fees; Rs.5618/- as privilege program club fees and Rs.3600/- as Group General Insurance Premium. Complainant committed default in payment of EMIs and as such, it was found as if amount of Rs.2,42,656.85P was outstanding against the complainant as on 12.3.2015. Complainant has always been in knowledge of the rate of interest charged on the loan amount, but for avoiding liability of payment of outstanding dues, he has taken up these false pleas. Though request by the complainant for contracting loan of Rs.5 lac was submitted, but after processing, sanction for Rs.3,46,500/- alone was granted, out of which, Rs.3,27,900/- was disbursed as referred above. Loan was sanctioned to the complainant after going through necessary formalities and procedures adopted at the time of sanction of loan. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

3.                 Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and then his counsel closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Archit Sant Gautam, Authorized Officer of OP company along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and then closed the evidence.

5.                 Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed by counsel for parties and those were heard.        Records gone through minutely. 

6.                 Grievance of complainant regarding non handing over the NOC to him even after receipt of settled amount stood redressed after supply of said NOC dated 1.10.2015 along with forwarding letter annexed therewith. Statement of counsel for complainant regarding receipt of this NOC was recorded on 8.8.2017. Through this recorded statement of 8.8.2017, counsel for complainant admitted that the complainant is satisfied with the claim of providing NOC only. However, this NOC was supplied late after intervention of this Forum and as such, it is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that Ops provided deficient services by not handing over the NOC even after receipt of settled amount.

7.                 There is no dispute regarding fact that after issue of offer letter Ex.C1 qua settlement of loan outstanding due, amount of Rs.1,06,000/- paid by the complainant to Ops as per term of this Ex.C1, but after arrival of full and final settlement compromise deed Ex.C2. Cheque Ex.C3 of payment of Rs.1,06,000/- to Ops produced in proof of same and receipt of acceptance of this amount by Ops on 30.7.2015 is also produced on record as Ex.C4 along with schedule of installments and payments as Ex.C5.

8.                 After taking us through Ex.C5, it is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that privilege program club fee of Rs.5618/- and group general insurance premium of Rs.3600/- was not liable to be deducted, but despite that these amounts deducted for charging excessive amount and as such, violation committed by Ops. That submission of counsel for complainant has no force because in view of arrival of full and final settlement through compromise deed Ex.C2, it is obvious that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of Ex.C2 after signing on this deed Ex.C2. Had the above referred amounts been charged in excess than the entitlement of Ops, then certainly complainant would have claimed refund of above referred amounts through Ex.C2 before paying the settled amount of Rs.1,06,000/-. No protest through Ex.C2 raised by the complainant for claiming that the above referred amounts of premium charged in excess and as such now complainant estopped by his act and conduct from claiming refund of the above paid amounts because full and final settlement is binding on the parties and no additional terms and conditions can be added thereto.

9.                 However, after going through Ex.C2, it is made out that Ops to return the nine security cheques within 30 days from the date of execution of this compromise deed Ex.C2, but despite that those nine security cheques has not been returned to the complainant by Ops by claiming that those have been destroyed. Statement of Sh.Sukhwinder Rana, Collection Manager of OP concerned having branch at Jagdambay Complex, Rajpura Road, Ludhiana was recorded on 15.2.2017, through which, he claimed that NOC again has been handed over to the complainant, but the security cheques issued by the complainant at the time of sanctioning of the loan agreement have been destroyed by the OP company after closure of the loan account. No record of destruction of these security cheques at the time of closure of loan account has been produced by Ops, despite the fact that Ops through compromise deed Ex.C2 agreed for return  these nine security cheques. So, certainly Ops have backed out from the terms and conditions of compromise deed Ex.C2. By destroying the nine security cheques without consent of the complainant and by not abiding by the terms and conditions of compromise deed Ex.C2 qua return of these nine security cheques to him, despite the fact that they received the full and final settled amount of Rs.1,06,000/- admittedly, Ops provided deficient services. That is a major lapse on the part of Ops. So, for ensuring that on the basis of the said nine security cheques, Ops or its assignee does not stake any claim in future for misuse of the same, a condition need to be put on Ops as well as on its assignee of not to stack any claim in future on the basis of

 these nine security cheques against the complainant or his representative. It is so because Ops violated the terms and conditions of compromise deed Ex.C2 by not returning the cheques, due to which, genuine apprehension in the mind of complainant bound to be there that these cheques may not be misused by Ops or its assignee in future. Due to non performance of obligation of return of nine security cheques as per compromise deed Ex.C2, certainly the complainant bound to suffer mental pain and harassment as well as agony and as such, he is entitled for compensation of amount of Rs.5000/- at least along with litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-, particularly when Ops handed over the NOC after long delay through the process of this Forum and not before that, despite issue of registered notice Ex.C6 through postal receipts Ex.C7 to Ex.C11.

10.               After going through document Ex.R1, it is made out that documentation fee/charges of Rs.8350/- or such other amount as may be specified by Ops from time to time plus applicable taxes and/or other statutory levies chargeable in respect of sanctioned loan. Premium for group insurance paid for safety   of complainant or the mortgaged premises and as such, benefit of that insurance cover got by the complainant, due to which, Ops entitled to deduct those amounts. If the alleged illegal gratification of amount of Rs.10,000/- charged from the complainant by representative of Ops at the time of disbursal of loan, which  as  per claim of Ops took place on 17.6.2013, then remedy available with the complainant is to file complaint before the Vigilance Department. So, deficiency in service on the part of Ops on account of that cannot be inferred, particularly when those allegations cannot be probed by this Forum because of involvement of intricate question of law and facts, requiring elaborate evidence.

11.               Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint disposed of in terms that OPs or its assignee will not stake any claim in future on the basis of nine security cheques bearing No.000084 to 000092 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Samrala Road branch, Ludhiana   against the complainant or                                  his representatives. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OPs because of their fault in not returning the nine security cheques even after settlement. Payment of these amounts of compensation along with litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which complainant will be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on these amounts from today till payment. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

12.                         File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                                     (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                                              President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:25.09.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.