DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 143 of 01.06.2007<br /> Decided on : 05-10-2007 <br /> <br /> Balbir Singh S/o Babu Ram, R/o H. No. 7658 Ram Bagh Road, Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.G.E. Money through its Manager, Gurjit Singh, G.E. Money Financial Services Ltd., Ground Floor, Grover Complex, Hanuman Chowk Opposite ICICI Bank, Bathinda.<br /> 2.G.E. Countrywide Consumer Financial Service Limited, through its M.D./Chairman, Unit No. 401 and 402, 4th Floor Aggarwal Millennium Tower E-1, 2, 3, Netaji Subash Place, Pitampura,. Delhi 110 034.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. N.P. Singh, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sandeep Baghla, Advocate. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Opposite party No. 2 is a Finance company and opposite party No. 1 is its branch at Bathinda. A loan of Rs. 27,500/- was applied for by the complainant in February, 2006. Opposite party No. 1 had agreed to sanction it with interest @13.5% P.A. 30 blank cheques duly signed were obtained from him. His signatures were also obtained on various blank forms and papers as security. Loan of Rs. 27,500/- was advanced by opposite party No. 1 after deducting a sum of Rs. 825/- as processing fee vide loan account No. RNBT 00000248 in February, 2006 @ 13.50 % P.A. payable in 30 monthly equated installments. As per rules and regulations of the opposite party, he could foreclose the account after expiry of six months. After six installments were deposited, he received letter dated 20.10.06 on 14.11.06 according to which rate of interest was shown as 33.48% against agreed and promised rate of interest 13.50%. In November, 2006, he approached opposite party No. 1 with request to foreclose the account and to finally settle his account by charging agreed rate of interest i.e.@ 13.50 % P.A, but opposite party No. 1 deliberately delayed the matter. Legal notice dated 25.11.06 was served upon the opposite parties for foreclosure and final settlement of the account. Opposite party No. 2 sent reply dated 5.12.06 advising him to contact their consumer care service centre at Bathinda for foreclosure of the account and settlement of his account by making the entire payment @13.50% if company's policy so permits. Further demand of Rs. 24,789.54 was raised against agreed rate of interest. He asserts that amount of 13 installments @ Rs. 1746/- each has been deposited. He wants foreclosure of his account with interest @13.50%, but opposite party No. 1 is not closing it. His requests to this effect have proved futile. Act and conduct of the opposite parties is arbitrary, malafide and against principle of natural justice. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. In these circumstances, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') has been preferred seeking direction from this forum to the opposite parties to settle his loan account with interest @13.50% PA. after adjusting the installments paid by him; return the remaining cheques and other papers duly signed by him; pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/-for mental agony and frustration and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable; complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct; complaint is false and vexatious; complainant has no locus standi to file it and he has not come with clean hands. On merits, they admit that opposite party No. 2 is a Finance Company and opposite party No. 1 is its branch at Bathinda. Complainant had applied for loan of Rs. 27,500/-. It was sanctioned . They deny that it was sanctioned with interest @13.50% P.A. Story has been concocted by him to avoid legal liability. They deny that they had obtained 30 blank cheques and got his signatures on various blank forms and papers. He requested for foreclosure of the loan A/c and thereafter letter was issued by them as per norms and policies. Rate of interest was also mentioned in the welcome letter issued to him. Legal notice was received. It was duly replied. They deny that amount of Rs. 24,789.54 was legally demanded by him. Installments paid have been duly reflected in the statement of accounts. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopies of Welcome letter (Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-4), photocopies of postal receipts (Ex. C-5 & Ex. C-6), photocopy of acknowledge card (Ex. C-7), photocopy of reply of legal notice (Ex. C-8), photocopy of application (Ex. C-9) and photocopy of statement of account (Ex. C-10).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties photocopy of Application Form (Ex. R-1), photocopy of Customer Sheet (Ex. R-2), photocopy of calculation of loan amount (Ex. R-3), photocopy of Most Important Document (Ex. R-4), photocopy of Promissory Note (Ex. R-5), photocopy of letter dated 31.7.07 (Ex. R-6) and affidavit of Sh. Dhirendra Singh, Manager (Ex. R-7) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant.<br /> 6. Arguments pressed into service by Mr. N P Singh, learned counsel for the complainant are that loan of Rs. 27,500/- was sanctioned to the complainant @ interest of Rs. 13.50% P.A. After expiry of six months of the sanctioning of the loan, he could foreclose the account. Letter was received by the complainant, copy of which is Ex. C-2 in which rate of interest has been mentioned @33.48% instead of 13.50%. Legal notice dated 25.11.06, copy of which is Ex. C-4 was sent to the opposite parties, reply of which was sent by opposite party No. 2, copy of which is Ex. C-8, stating that a sum of Rs.24,789.54 is to be paid as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Complainant has made various payments as have been shown in the statement of account, copy of which is Ex. C-10.<br /> 7. Mr. Sandeep Baghla, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that complaint is not maintainable before this forum as it pertains to settlement of account. Remedy available to the complainant is to file civil suit for rendition of accounts as on the back side of application form rate of interest mentioned is 33.48%. In the Promissory Note executed by the complainant, copy of which is Ex. R-5, he has agreed to pay interest @ 33.48% P.A. Even through welcome letter dated 20.10.06 and letter dated 31.7.07, complainant was apprised about the rate of interest @33.48%. Amount of Rs. 24,789.54 was rightly demanded. Complainant can foreclose his account by way of making payment of interest on the amount due @33.48%.<br /> 8. We have considered the respective arguments and we feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the opposite parties. Dispute pertains to the accounts between the parties. It cannot be said to be a consumer dispute. Rather, it is a civil dispute for which complainant should approach civil court. Facts and circumstances clearly establish the relationship of the complainant with the opposite parties as that of borrower and debtor. Complainant claims foreclosure of his account with interest @13.50%. Specific payable amount has not been disclosed by him. To the contrary, opposite parties claim balance amount alongwith interest @33.48%. Complainant alleges that demand of Rs. 24,789.54 is illegal whereas opposite parties claim this amount is payable. Loan was agreed to be paid in installments. Detailed evidence has to be led by the parties regarding agreement concerning the rate of interest and how much amount is due for foreclosure of the account. Such elaborate evidence to this effect can be led in civil court and forum in summary way cannot adjudicate these intricate questions. In such a situation, complaint is not maintainable before this Forum because the version and counter version relate to accounts. In this view of the matter, we get support from the observations of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Aggarwal Dyeing Industries Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and Others 1991 CPJ-341. Hon'ble State Commission of Punjab has also expressed the same view in the case of K.K. Foams Industries and Another Vs. Punjab Financial Corporation & Another 2004(2) JRC-30. Reference can also be made to the authorities Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd., Vs. Himanshu S. Thumar 2005 CTJ-791 (CP)(SCDRC), Vishal Roadways Vs. Economic Traders (Gujarat) Ltd. III(1998) CPJ-9 (NC), M/s. House of Dubary Vs. New Bank of India 1991-CPC-391 (NC) and Kehar Singh Vs. M/s. Satish Kumar Surinder Kumar 1997(I)CPC 589.<br /> 9. Since this Forum cannot try and adjudicate the complaint in view of the discussion made above, merits of the case are not being touched.<br /> 10. In the result, complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court for getting his grievances redressed, if so advised and permitted <br /> by law. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 05-10-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br />