BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.419 of 2015

Date of Instt. 24.09.2015

Date of Decision:10.01.2018

Narinder Kumar aged about 37 years S/o Sh. Krishan Lal R/o H. No.577, Gali No.8, Tagore Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. G.E. MONEY, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

Second Address: 41, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ferozeput Road, Ludhiana.

2. MAGMA FINCORE LTD., Near Dainik Bhaskar, New Baradari, Opp. Tehsil Complex, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

..….…Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. AK Sonik, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. Vikas Sood, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 and 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. The instant complaint is presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant obtained a loan from the OP No.1 against the property, vide loan A/c No.HFZE00000035 for an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- at annual flat rate of interest @ 8.41% p.a. The loan tenure was for 132 months and the complainant was to repay the loan in 132 installments starting from 07.04.2007 to till 07.04.2018 and the installment amount was agreed of Rs.13,614/- per month.

2. That during the course, the OP No.1 transferred the loan to OP No.2 and directed the complainant to deposit the amount with OP No.2 and as per their direction, the complainant was started making the payment in the account of OP No.2. The complainant was regularly making the payment of installments through cash and cheques and has paid the amount upto August, 2015. Now, the complainant wants to close his account and requested the OP No.2 in the month of July, 2015 to give the details of remaining amount as he wants to close his account and wants to make the entire payment of the loan account by closing the account premature, as per the rules. The complainant was surprised to see the statement of account given by the OP No.2, in which the OP No.2 claims a sum of Rs.8,24,629/-, which includes outstanding amount, interest and other charges. As per the loan letter issued by the OP No.1, the complainant has to pay the installments upto 07.03.2018 and he has already paid a sum of Rs.13,06,944/- and only Rs.4,90,104/- remained due towards the above said loan account. When the complainant asked this fact to the OP No.2 and told him regarding the loan letter, the OP No.2 flatly refused to abide by the terms and facts mentioned in the loan letter dated 08.07.2007 and claimed exorbitant amount and interest, which the complainant never agreed to pay the OPs and as such, the OPs have committed unfair trade practice by claiming exorbitant interest as well as principal amount, which never become due towards the said loan account and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the OPs be directed to set-aside the illegal demand letter dated 23.07.2015 and OPs further be directed to settle the account as per letter dated 08.07.2015 and further OPs be directed to pay compensation/damages to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OPs filed a joint written reply and contested the same by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and further averred that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and further alleged that earlier the complainant took the final assistance and mortgaged the property. He assured to make the payment in time. The terms and conditions of the loan agreement are binding on both the parties. As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the complainant is to pay the amount and is to discharge the liability. The OP is entitled for the remaining amount as per the terms and conditions. The demand of the OP is not illegal and the OP never committed any deficiency in service. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant obtained a loan, but it is denied that a flat rate of interest was agreed between the parties and the other averments made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove his case, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-19 and closed the evidence.

5. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence documents Ex.OP-1 Loan Agreement and Ex.OP-2 Statement of Account and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. Precisely, the contention of the counsel for the complainant is that the complainant obtained a loan of Rs.9,00,000/- from OP No.1 and at the time of getting a loan, a loan letter Ex.C1 dated 08.05.2007 was issued by the OP No.1, wherein the flat interest rate is agreed on the loan amount @ 8.41% per annum and the loan amount was agreed to be paid by way of 132 monthly installments of Rs.13,614/- from 07.04.2007 to 07.03.2018 and accordingly, the complainant was regularly paying the installment of Rs.13,614/- and thereafter, the OP No.1 transferred the loan account to OP No.2 and on the asking of the OP No.1, the complainant started paying the loan installment to OP No.2 and the complainant has paid Rs.13,06,944/- and then asked the OP No.2 in the month of July, 2015 that he wants to settle the remaining loan account by way of making payment in lump-sum and accordingly, the OP No.2 issued a letter for making a remaining payment of Rs.8,24,629/-, vide letter dated 23.07.2015 Ex.C2, but infact out of the total amount, the complainant has already paid Rs.13,06,944/- and only Rs.4,90,104/- remained due towards the above said loan account, but the OPs are demanding exorbitant interest on the loan amount, which is clear cut unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, because the rate of interest is fixed i.e. flat rate 8.41% p.a and in order to prove that the complainant has paid the installments, the complainant brought on the file copy of statement of loan account Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-19 and further submitted that the OP be directed to set-aside the letter dated 23.07.2015 and settle the amount as per letter dated 08.07.2015 and OP be also directed to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

8. No doubt, in order to meet out the case of the complainant, the OPs filed a written reply and took a numerous plea, like the parties are bound by the terms and conditions and as per terms and conditions, if there is any delay of making payment of the installment, then the complainant is liable to pay the interest on the loan amount, in view of the defaulter clause of the agreement. Apart from that the OP also brought on the file copy of loan agreement Ex.OP-1 and copy of the loan account ledger Ex.OP-2. As per settled principle of law, the pleading must be proved and established by way of evidence, but in this case, the OPs have not brought on the file any affidavit in the shape of evidence to prove the pleading and in the absence of any evidence, we cannot accept the pleading of the OP as true, because the only method to prove the pleading is to give an evidence by way of affidavit, but there is no affidavit of the OPs rather only two documents placed on the file by the OPs i.e. Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2. So, in the absence of any evidence in regard to prove the allegations made in the written reply, the case of the complainant become more strong, if so then, the version put forth by the complainant seems to be a true being a reason, the same is not controverted or rebutted by the OPs by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. So, with these observations, we have no option except to accept the version of the complainant as it is, i.e. as elaborated in the affidavit Ex.CA of the complainant and as per evidence of the complainant, he has already paid the amount of Rs.13,06,944/- and there remains only Rs.4,90,104/-, but the OP has been demanding excess amount i.e. in total Rs.8,24,629/-, which is illegal and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. So, accordingly, we reach to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.

9. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and letter issued by the OP dated 23.07.2015 for demand of Rs.8,24,629/- is hereby set-aside and OPs are directed to settle the account of the complainant as per letter dated 08.07.2015 i.e. to receive the alleged remaining amount of Rs.4,90,104/- from the complainant and then issued a 'No Due Certificate' and further OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-, the aforesaid amount of Rs.17,000/- be paid to the complainant. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

10.01.2018 Member President