DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.114 of 20-04-2018

Decided on 10-09-2019

Pritpal Singh S/o Parkash Singh R/o H.No.7813, Purana Thana Road Near Jeet Mal Di Chakki, Bathinda

........Complainant

Versus

HDB Finance Service, Branch SCO No.123, First Floor, G.T. Road Opposite Three Cinema, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager/Loan Manager/Location Manager/Authorized Signatory.

.......Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Smt.Manisha, Member.

Present:-

For the complainant: Sh.Randhir Singh Sidhu, Advocate.

For opposite party: Sh.Gurinder Singh, Advocate.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Pritpal Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties HDB Finance Service (here-in-after referred to as opposite party).

2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that he obtained loan of Rs.6,25,000/- vide account No.2198236 from opposite party for enterprise business loan in the month of February 2017 for the livelihood for himself and his family. An amount of Rs.6,10,625/- was paid after deducting an amount of Rs.14,375/- as processing fee. He deposited installment regularly till October 2017.

3. It is alleged that due to financial crises, he did not deposit the installment before few months. Thereafter he desired to pay full and final payment of loan amount to opposite party. Accordingly, he approached opposite party and requested it that he is ready to deposit whole amount. He deposited an amount of Rs.6,04,637.32/-, but no detail has been given to him at that time. After that opposite party closed the loan account of the complainant.

4. It is further alleged that when the complainant calculated amount, it came to his notice that opposite party got deposited the excess amount from him. He requested opposite party to refund the excess amount, but it did not give him any satisfactory reply and it lingered on the matter on one or other pretext. He also got issued legal notice on 9.2.2018 through his counsel, but to no response.

5. It is further alleged that due to this act and conduct of opposite party, the complainant has suffered from great mental tension, agony, botheration harassment and also financial loss. For these sufferings, he has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- in addition to refund of excess amount and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.11,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

6. Upon notice, opposite party appeared through its counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version. In the written version, opposite party had raised the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. The true facts are that complainant approached opposite party for taking Enteprise Business Loan. The loan was disbursed. As such, the complainant is not 'consumer' as per law. This Forum has no jurisdiction. Opposite party got deposited foreclosure amount as per signed loan agreement. The complainant himself admitting the same as correct and signed foreclosure sheet and deposited foreclosure amount. The complaint filed by him is vague and lastly, no cause-of-action has arisen in his favour. As such, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

7. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant availed loan as Enterprise Business Loan. It is also admitted that he approached opposite party to settle loan account, but it is denied that he deposited an amount of Rs.6,04,637.32/-

8. It is further mentioned that on 18.10.2017, opposite party issued prepayment/foreclosure on the request of complainant and after admitting the same as correct, the complainant signed prepayment/foreclosure sheet and deposited an amount of Rs.6,03,775/- against prepayment/foreclosure amount of Rs.6,04,638/-. The total loan amount with interest was Rs.9,52,260/-, which was to be deposited by the complainant in 60 monthly installments. All other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, opposite party has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9. Parties were asked to produce the evidence.

10. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 18.9.2018, (C1); photocopy of repayment schedule, (Ex.C2); photocopy of account statement, (Ex.C3); photocopy of letter, (Ex.C4); photocopy of legal notice, (Ex.C5); photocopy of postal receipt, (Ex.C6); photocopy of passbook, (Ex.C7) and closed the evidence.

11. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vikesh Verma dated 12.10.2018, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopy of loan account statement, (Ex.OP1/2); photocopy of prepayment status, (Ex.OP1/3); photocopy of loan agreement, (Ex.OP1/4) and submitted written arguments.

12. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file as well as written arguments submitted by learned counsel for opposite party.

13. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above.

14. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions.

15. Admitted facts are that the complainant availed loan from opposite party and paid entire outstanding amount to clear loan. His version is that he had paid Rs.6,04,637/- and opposite party has admitted receipt of Rs.6,03,775/-. Complainant has not produced any record to prove payment of Rs.6,04,637/- as claimed by him. His averment is that opposite party has charged excess amount at the time of final settlement. He has not mentioned the excess amount allegedly charged by opposite party. In this way, his allegation regarding charging of excess amount is uncertain, indefinite and vague. Opposite party has produced on record prepayment status, (Ex.OP1/3), which proves that as per calculation, outstanding amount of Rs.6,04,637.32/- was calculated and complainant admitted this amount. This fact shows that the complainant was given waiver of Rs.863/- and remaining amount was got deposited from him. As complainant has failed to allege and prove how opposite party has charged the excess amount, no deficiency in services and unfair trade practice can be attributed on its party.

16. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.

17. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

18. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    10-09-2019

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Manisha)

    Member