Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/86/2023

CHHINDER PARKASH S/O SH. OM PARKASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

HERO FINCORP LIMITED THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK AGGARWAL

05 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/86/2023
Date of Institution	:	16/2/2023
Date of Decision	:	5/12/2024

 

Chhinder Parkash S/o Sh.Om Parkash, R/o House No.1642, 38 West Dadu Majra Colony, Chandigarh 160036.

... Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. Hero FinCorp Limited, SCO No.383-384, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

 

2nd Address: Regd. Office at 34, Community Center, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057.

 

2. Rupesh Kumar S/o Raj Kumar, Proprietor of Al Finance Services, Shop No.1, Near Balmiki Mandir, DMC, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh.

 

2nd Address: R/o House No.2152, Daddu Majra Colony, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh.

... Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Inderjeet Singh, Adv. proxy for Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Hitender Kansal, Advocate for OP No.1.
	:	Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. for OP No.2.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that in the month of July 2020, the complainant was approached by OP No.2, for loan services. OP No.2 told the complainant that he can arrange Mudra Loan under Prime Minister Loan Scheme of Govt. of India to the complainant having rate of interest of 7.5% p.a including other benefits. Complainant agreed to avail loan facility of Rs.5 Lakhs under the aforesaid scheme and the loan amount repayable within three years. When the needful was not done, complainant approached OP No.2 who showed its inability and told that it is not possible to get Mudra Loan under the Prime Minister Loan Scheme but OP No.2 can arrange loan from HDFC Bank with the fixed interest rate of 10% per annum. Thereafter, OP No.2 informed the complainant in the month of September 2020, that he had arranged a loan as per the requirements of the complainant from some bank other than the HDFC and if the complainant avails the same the rate of interest will be very low and would be repayable in easy equated monthly instalments. Thereafter, again OP No.2 got signed many blank documents from the complainant including pre-printed formats on the dotted lines etc. without disclosing the name of the financial institution/bank or bringing the terms and conditions to the notice of complainant. It was only on 12.09.2020 that complainant came to know from OP No.2, regarding sanction of bank loan by OP No.1. Complainant received a bolt from the blue on receipt of sanction letter wherein sanctioned loan amount was mentioned as Rs.5,49,004/- instead of Rs.5 Lakhs as needed by complainant. Further the rate of interest was mentioned as 13.5% p.a. instead of 7.5% p.a. as committed earlier. Further the EMI's were to be repayable in 60 months instead of 36 months committed earlier by OP No.2. Matter does not rest here because complainant was ultimately disbursed only Rs.4,80,584/ instead of even Rs.5,49,004/- which amount was sanctioned. Further also that OP No.1, illegally deducted the following charges also including PF charges of Rs.19216/-, LI charges of Rs.12809/-, GI charges of Rs.36195, Stamp duty charges of Rs.200/- and Pre EMI charges of Rs.336/-. No transparency was made by the OPs regarding above charges. Apart from above OPs did not leave any stone unturned to harass the complainant has the first instalment of loan of Rs.15167/- was due on 08.10.2020 and was cleared by the complainant through cheque dated 15.10.2020. Thereafter, the next instalment was due on 18.11.2020 and the complainant received a message on his mobile that the EMI cheque of instalment of Rs.15167/- has been returned unpaid despite of the fact that complainant was having sufficient balance in his account. Apart from above OPs illegally levied cheque bounce charges also and thus OPs fully indulged in unfair trade practices and deficiency in service. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the complainant is a chronic defaulter and he has failed to make the EMI timely. Furthermore, the Complainant without any demur had given his consent firstly he on 05.09.2020 submitted the Loan Application form and then, on 09.09.2020 he applied for insurance by submitting proposal Form (Annexure R-2 to R-4). Thereafter, the Loan application was processed by Answering Company and sanctioned the loan to the complaint to tune of Rs.549004/- on 12.09.2020 by disclosing the relevant information toward personal loan (Ex.C-2). After the issuance of sanction letter disclosing each and every thing to the Complainant, on the same day i.e. 12.09.2020 complainant executed the Loan agreement and requested for the disbursement of Loan amount as per sanction letter. On 14.09.2020 after deducting the charges disclosed in the sanctioned letter dated 12.09.2020 and mentioned in Loan Agreement dated 12.09.2020 the amount was credited to Complainant account (Annexure R-5).  It is further stated that the Complainant was highly irregular in making scheduled payment of loan. The Complainant was highly irregular in depositing the entire loan amount and failed to deposit the amount before the due date, due to which finance charges, late fee charges and other contractual charges were levied upon the Complainant and Other Co-borrower. Copy of Loan account statement is attached as Annexure R-6. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.1.
3.     OP No.2 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that he has kept us in fake case. We have no dealing with him. He himself gave his papers to the bank. The bank person sanctioned his loan and checked all his papers and explained the entire bank policy to him. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended.
4.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7.     The main grievance of the complainant is that the OP No.1 sanctioned loan amount of Rs.5,49,004/- instead of Rs.5.00 lacs as asked for and he was disbursed only Rs.4,80,584/-. Further, the OPs deducted various other charges without his knowledge & concurrence.
8.     We have perused various annexures annexed by the OPs. On perusal of personal loan application form (Annexure R-5) we observed that it is duly signed by the complainant. This form contains all the details of sanctioned loan amount and the details of insurance premium charges of Rs.36195 + Rs.12809 =49004/-.
9.     The annexure R-3 & R-4, are the insurance policy enrolment forms which are duly singed by the complainant.
10.     After perusal of above details, we are of the view that complainant was aware of all the details of recovery of insurance premiums and other charges from the amount of sanctioned loan.
11.     In view of the above, complainant has not been able to prove his case. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 
12.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

5/12/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member