DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 231 of 30-08-2018

Decided on : 30-04-2019

1. Gurtej Singh S/o Hakam Singh aged about 60 years

2. Jasvir Kaur W/o Gurtej Singh aged about 57 years

- Both R/o 16579, Gali No. 4, Harpal Nagar, Bathinda.

…...Complainants

Versus

1. HDB Financial Service Ltd., SCF- 123, First Floor, Goniana Road, Near Hotel Sweet Milan, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager

2. HDB Financial Service Ltd., Radhika, 2^nd Floor, Law Garden Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad Gujrat through its Managing Director

.......Opposite parties

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. O P Mehta, Advocate.

For the opposite parties : Sh. S K Khurana, Advocate.

O R D E R

M. P. Singh Pahwa, President

1. Gurtej Singh and Jasvir Kaur, complainants (here-in-after referred to as 'complainants') have filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against HDB Financial Service Ltd., ( here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties').

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that they obtained loan of Rs. 6,30,000/- from opposite party No. 1 on 16-11-2016 for domestic and household use. The loan amount of Rs. 6,00,390/- was disbursed to them. The amount of Rs. 29,610/- was deducted by the opposite parties from the loan amount of Rs. 6,30,000/-. The monthly installment for repayment of loan amount was fixed at Rs. 12,513/- starting from 04-12-2016. From the month of Dec. 2016 upto July 2018, the opposite parties kept on withdrawing monthly installment of Rs. 13,903/- instead of Rs. 12,513/- from the joint account of complainants bearing Account no. 035501000003754 operated by complainants with Indian Overseas Bank, Bathinda. Besides withdrawal of monthly installments more than agreed rate, at the time of sanctioning loan, the opposite parties withdrew Rs. 3500/- on 05-11-2016 from the account of complainants for the reason best known to them. When the expenses/charges of Rs. 29,610/- were already detained by the opposite parties at the time of sanctioning loan, withdrawal of Rs. 3500/- on 05-11-2016 indicates unfair trade practice of the opposite parties. The loan was to be paid back in 84 Installments at Rs. 12,513/- per month ending on 04-11-2023. The complainants approached opposite party No. 1 with the request to get the entire amount deposited from them and they gave in writing that in case entire loan amount was to be paid, the amount of Rs. 6,28,683.33 was to be deposited. As per assessment dated 19-7-2018 to the tune of Rs. 6,28,683.33, the complainants were asked to pay Rs. 6,29,214/-. Cheque of Rs. 6,29,214/- dated 20-7-2018 was taken by the opposite parties from the complainants. This amount also stands withdrawn by opposite parties from the account of complainants.

3. It is alleged that the opposite parties have played a false game with the complainants by withdrawing surplus amount of monthly Installments, deduction of charges to the tune of Rs. 29,610/- as well as Rs. 3500/- as reflected in the statement of account of the complainants. They have committed fraud and cheating with the complainants. This act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainants have claimed Rs. 60,910/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from November 2016 and Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment. Hence, this complaint.

4. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing joint written reply. In written reply, the opposite parties raised legal objections that the complaint in not maintainable. That the complainants have no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint. That the complainants have not come with clean hands. They have suppressed material facts from this Forum.

5. As per opposite parties, true facts are that the complainants approached opposite parties for taking the Enterprise Business Loan of Rs. 7,00,000/-. At that time, the opposite parties sanctioned a sum of Rs. 6,30,000/- to the complainants. Out of the said amount, the opposite parties deducted Rs. 29,610/- which was disclosed to the complainants before disbursement of loan. At that time, the complainants gave consent to the opposite parties and signed documents. The complainants signed loan agreement. The details were also disclosed in the loan agreement. After deduction, the remaining loan amount of Rs. 6,00,390/- was credited in the account of the complainants on 31-10-2016. Thereafter, the opposite parties sanctioned another amount of Rs. 70,000/- and credited the same to the bank account of the complainants through NEFT on dated 23-11-2016. The opposite parties sanctioned total loan as per demand of complainants to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/- which was to be repaid in 84 monthly installments of Rs. 13,903/-. First installment was to be paid on 04-12-2016 and last installment on 04-11-2023. That this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint filed on the allegation of Fraud and Cheating and that the complaint is false, frivolous and baseless. It is liable to be dismissed.

6. On merits, the opposite parties have controverted all the material averments and reiterated their stand as taken in preliminary objections and detailed above. Regarding deduction of Rs. 3500/-, the opposite parties have pleaded that this amount was on account of application fee and mentioned in the loan agreement also. After controverting all other averments, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of letter (Ex. C-1), photocopy of account statement (Ex. C-2), photocopy of letter (Ex. C-3), photocopy of receipt (Ex. C-4) and affidavit dated 27-8-2018 of complainant (Ex. C-5).

8. In order to rebut this evidence, the opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit dated 26-10-2018 of Vikash Verma (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of account statement (Ex. OP-1/2), photocopy of loan agreement (Ex. OP-1/3), photocopy of terms and conditions (Ex. OP-1/4), photocopy of particulars of security (Ex. OP-1/6), photocopy of Schedule A (Ex. OP-1/7), photocopy of letters (Ex. OP-1/7 to Ex. OP-1/9) and closed the evidence.

9. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has also submitted written arguments.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through written arguments of the opposite parties and the record.

11. Learned counsel for the parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings.

12. We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions.

13. As per complainants, they have availed loan of Rs. 6,30,000/- from the opposite parties but the version of the opposite parties is that the total amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- was disbursed to the complainants as they claimed loan of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The complainants and opposite parties have placed on record statement of account (Ex. C-2 & Ex. OP-1/2 respectively). Statement of account Ex. C-2 proves credit of Rs. 6,00,390/- to the account of the complainant on 11-11-2016. The opposite parties have also admitted deduction of Rs. 29,610/-. This deduction is also reflected in the account statement maintained by the opposite parties as Ex. OP-1/2.

14. Now it is to be seen whether the opposite parties were justified to deduct this amount. The opposite parties have placed on record copy of agreement (Ex. OP-1/3) signed by complainants. The charges to be deducted are mentioned in this agreement which includes application fee of Rs. 3500/-, processing fee - 2% of loan amount. In the end of this agreement, deductions are again revealed which includes BPI Rs. 1244/-, Cersai Rs. 115/-, HDFC ERGO Rs. 895/-, CPP Rs. 11206/-, PF Rs. 16,100/- and Stamp Rs. 50/-. This document is also signed by complainants. It is to be accepted that complainant executed agreement before availing loan. The complainants have not challenged terms and conditions of the agreement. Therefore, it is clear that complainants were made aware regarding deduction of the amounts.

15. The complainants have also disputed deduction of Rs. 3500/- but as per agreement, the opposite parties were also to charge Rs. 3500/- as application fee.

16. The other point raised by the complainants is that monthly installment was Rs. 12,513/- and the opposite parties have charged Rs. 13903/- as monthly installment. The complainants have revealed installment of Rs. 12,513/- on the basis of loan of Rs. 6,30,000/- but the opposite parties have claimed that further loan of Rs. 70,000/- was advanced to the complainants. The statement of account Ex. C-3 relied upon by the complainants themselves proves that sum of Rs. 70,000/- was credited to the account of the complainants on 22-11-2016 by NEFT by the opposite parties. It shows that complainants have availed loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- and not Rs. 6,30,000/-. Therefore, the installment against loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- was certainly to be more than Rs. 12,513/- which was for loan of Rs. 6,30,000/-.

17. The complainants have also pleaded that at the time of settlement, the opposite parties agreed to settle the claim on payment of Rs. 6,28,683.33. Ex. C-3 proves this fact but this loan was to be cleared on the date of settlement. Certainly this loan was paid on 21-7-2018 whereas settlement was on 19-7-2018. Therefore, the opposite parties are to charge interest for subsequent period also.

18. The matter can be examined from another angle also. The complainants have cleared the loan vide cheque dated 20-7-2018. There is nothing to show that complainants have paid this amount under protest. Therefore, relationship of consumer and service provider came to an end on 20-7-2018 when the loan was cleared. Now the complainants cannot challenge the amount paid by them which was paid by them voluntarily.

19. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

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

21. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

    Announced :

    30-04-2019

    (M.P.Singh Pahwa )

    President

     

     

    (Manisha)

    Member