BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.234/15.
Date of instt.: 05.10.2015.
Date of Decision: 01.09.2016.
Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Khushi Ram, r/o House No.115/20, Sector-20, HUDA, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. HDB Financial Services Ltd., Kaithal c/o SCO No.329, Sector-20, HUDA Market, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
2. HDB Financial Services Ltd., Karnal, c/o SCO No.234, Sector-12, Karnal through its Branch Manager.
3. HDB Financial Services Ltd., Registered office, Radhika, 2nd Floor, Law Garden Road, Navrangpur, Ahemdabad, Gujrat (380009).
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he availed the loan facilities from Op No.1 being the customer of Op No.1 and Op No.2 is the Head Office of Op No.1, whereas the Op No.3 is the registered office of Op No.1. It is alleged that on 25.11.2015, an amount of Rs.14,79,969/- was granted as loan to the complainant by the Op No.1 at Kaithal. It is alleged that the complainant had been deposited the monthly instalments as per schedule without any fault. It is further alleged that the complainant deposited the 6th instalment amount on 16.05.2015 through the cheque of HDFC Bank Ltd. It is further alleged that the complainant cleared the remaining loan amount of Ops vide cheque No.039958 dt. 20.05.2015 of HDFC Bank, Kaithal for the sum of Rs.14 lacs. It is further alleged that the Op No.1 issued the letter No.HDB30854 dt. 21.05.2015 to the complainant demanding an amount of Rs.63,100.61 paise as pre-payment charges as-well-as Rs.2611/- as late payment penalty charges and Rs.13,351.13 as interest till date of re-payment on 20.05.2015. The said amount of Rs.84,422/- is wrong and illegal. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has got no jurisdiction to file the present complaint as per the loan agreement. In fact the complainant got financed commercial vehicle and he purchased and got financed for business purpose and using the same for commercial purposes not for his own use; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 and Mark C1 to Mark C3 and closed evidence on 13.06.2016. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A and document Mark R1 and closed evidence on 13.06.2016.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant availed loan facilities from Ops vide personal loan agreement No.805225 and on 25.11.2014, an amount of Rs.14,79,669/- was granted as loan by the Ops. He further argued that the complainant had been depositing the monthly instlament as per schedule without any fault through cheques of HDFC Bank and deposited sixth instalmnet on 16.05.2015. He further argued that the complainant cleared the remaining amount by depositing cheque No.039958 dt. 20.05.2014 of Rs.14,00,000/- but the Op No.1 issued a letter No.HDB30854 dt. 21.05.2015 to the complainant demanding Rs.63,100.61 paise as pre-payment charges, Rs.2611/- as late payment penalty and Rs.13,351.13 paise as interest till 20.05.2015. He further argued that to avoid further harassment, the complainant deposited the above-said amount of Rs.84,422/- on 21.05.2015 with the Op No.1. He further argued that the above-said letter dt. 21.05.2015 is illegal, null and void and the Ops have adopted the unfair trade practice and the Ops are liable to refund the said amount. He produced a catena of authorities cited in 2012(2) CLT page 316 (Pnjab State Commission) titled as S.B.I. Vs. Meena Walia; 2013(4) CPJ page 513 (NC) titled as Bank of Baroda Vs. Ratan Singh Paviva & others; 2011(8) RCR (Civil) page 1645 (Delhi High Court) titled as Dlf Ltd. Vs. PNB and 2009(4) CPR page 177 (HP State Commission) titled as Ashok Leland Finance Ltd. Vs. Pitamber Raj. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops argued that the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement. He further argued that the borrower may prepay the entire outstanding balance (but not a part thereof) by giving to HDFSL 30 days notice in writing of his intention to prepay but in the present case, the complainant has not given any such notice.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that the complainant has not given any notice in writing prior to prepaying his entire loan amount. The complainant has settled all his account with the Ops by way of paying the entire amount demanded by the Ops. Even the said amount of Rs.84,422/- was not paid under protest, which means that the complainant has made the full and final settlement at his own will. In this context, we can rely upon the authority cited in 2014(3) CLT page 41 (NC) titled as A.P.Rajiv Swagruha Vs. Satish Chandra, wherein it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission that Flat allotment-Refund of deposit received by the complainants without any protest-Full and final settlement-Whether the complainants are stopped from reagitating the matter by filing the consumer complaints?-Held-That amount of refund paid to the respective complainants is in terms of the refund policy-There is no allegation in the complaint to the effect that full and final discharge receipts were obtained from them by misrepresentation, fraud or coercion-The State Commission, in our view, has committed a grave error in holding that it was a coercive bargaining ignoring the fact that there is no such allegation in the respective complaints-Revision petition allowed. When the complainant has settled all his account with the Ops, we are of the considered opinion that now the complainant cannot say that the Ops have adopted the act of unfair trade practice. So, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops. The authorities submitted by ld. Counsel for the complainant are not applicable to the facts of instant case.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and we hereby dismiss the same. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.01.09.2016.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
