Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/241

Anokh Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

ASHOK KUMAR MONGA

12 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

              C. C. No. :                      241 of 2017

Date of Institution:            1.08.2017

Date of Decision :            12.03.2019

 

Anokh Singh aged about 63 years s/o Gurmukh Singh s/o Gulzar Singh r/o House No.1048, Street No. 10-R, Dogar Basti, District Faridkot.                                                                        

...Complainant

Versus

1. Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. Branch Office c/o G K Cement, 1^st Floor, Ganesh Basti, Bus Stand, Bathinda, 151001 through Branch Manager / Authorized Persons/ Authorized Signatory / Authorized Representative.
2. Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. No.27/A, Developed Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600032 through its Chairman/MD/Authorized Representative.

                                            ....Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Ashok Monga, Ld Counsel for  Complainant,    

                  Sh Samr Vijay Singh, Ld Counsel for OPs.

ORDER

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                    

cc no.-241 of 2017

                                       Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to OPs to return the truck of complainant, to refund the illegally charged finance amount of Rs.3,57,120/- and for further directing them to pay Rs. 2 lac as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.

2                                         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is that complainant is the owner of truck bearing registration no. PB-04S-0689 make LP-1612/62 Leyland Model 2013, which he purchased on availing financial assistance of Rs.12,40,000/-from OPs. This amount was repayable in 48 equal instalments starting from 21.01.2014 to 21.12.2017 and vehicle in question was hypothecated in favour of OPs. It is submitted that said truck is the only source of livelihood for complainant and he was regularly paying all the instalments and till date, he has repaid the amount of Rs.9,93,912/-to OPs. It is further submitted that due to demonetization and imposition of GST, all business has faced recession through out the country and transport business also suffered great loss and due to this reason, complainant could not pay the due instalments. Moreover, in those days, grandson of complainant suffered from a severe kidney problem and huge amount of money was spent on his treatment. It is submitted that one month ago, complainant approached the office of OP-1 and requested them to get deposit Rs.2 lacs on account of his due instalments, but officials of OPs namely Mohinder Pal and Pardeep Kumar refused to accept his amount and insisted him to

 

cc no.-241 of 2017

repay the entire loan amount. Complainant tried to convince that agreement for repayment is till 21.12.2017, but they forced him to pay the entire amount at once. Thereafter on 10.07.2017, said officials entered the house of complainant alongwith their musclemen and demand Rs. 6 lacs from him. Complainant offered to pay Rs.3 lacs but they did not accept his request to take Rs. 3 lacs and forcibly took away the said truck from him. Next day, complainant approached the office of OP-1 and made several requests to them to return his truck and accept the amount of Rs. 3 lacs, but all in vain. it is submitted that said truck is the source of his livelihood and by snatching his truck, OPs have put him on road and he is facing severe financial difficulties. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                               The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 10.08.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

 4                                                       In reply, OPs took preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious and allegations regarding forcibly taking of vehicle and asserted that complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum. It is averred that at the time of entering into loan agreement, he agreed to abide by all the terms and conditions of same and after going through all the terms and conditions, he duly signed the same. He promised to pay all the instalments regularly and as per agreement, in default of

cc no.-241 of 2017

making punctual payment of instalments, OP have right to recover the amount and take possession of vehicle in question. It is asserted that amount of Rs.11,58,783/- is due towards complainant and it is totally denied that complainant has paid the amount of Rs.9,93,912/-to them. Officials of Ops requested complainant to clear the outstanding loan amount, but he paid no heed towards it. Arbitration proceedings are also pending against complainant. it is also denied that they ever obtained signatures of complainant on any blank forms. On merits, Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant himself is defaulter in making payment of instalments regularly. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                           Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.C-3 and documents Ex C-1, C-2 and from Ex C-4 to Ex C-13 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                          To controvert the evidence of complainant, ld counsel for OPs tendered in evidence, documents Ex OP-1 and Ex OP-2 and then closed the same on behalf of OPs.

7                                                        We have heard the counsel for complainant  and have also carefully gone through the pleadings and evidence of complainant as well as OPs.

8                                     It is observed that case of the complainant is that complainant has a truck which he purchased with financial assistance of

cc no.-241 of 2017

Rs.12,40,000/-from OPs. Loan amount was to be repaid  in 48 equal monthly instalments starting from 21.01.2014 to 21.12.2017 and vehicle was hypothecated in favour of OPs. Said truck was the only source of livelihood for complainant and he was regularly in paying all the instalments and has paid Rs.9,93,912/-to OPs towards loan amount. Due to demonetization and imposition of GST, transport business  suffered great recession  and due to this reason, he could not pay the due instalments and even in those days, grandson of complainant suffered from a severe kidney problem and huge amount of money was spent on his treatment. About one month ago, complainant approached OP-1 and requested them to accept Rs.2 lacs on account of his due instalments, but officials of OPs namely Mohinder Pal and Pardeep Kumar refused to accept his amount and forced him to repay the entire loan amount. Though as per loan agreement, last date for repayment is 21.12.2017, but they insisted for depositing entire amount. On 10.07.2017, said officials entered the house of complainant alongwith their musclemen and demand Rs. 6 lacs from him and when complainant offered to pay Rs.3 lacs they refused to take Rs. 3 lacs and forcibly snatch and took away the said truck from him. Next day, complainant  again approached OP-1 and made several requests to return his truck and said truck was the only source of his livelihood and by this act of snatching his truck, OPs have put him in great difficulty. It amounts to deficiency in service and has caused great harassment to him. He has prayed for accepting the present and stressed on documents Ex C-1 to Ex C-13.

9                                                   On the other hand, plea taken by Ops is that complainant was not regular in making payment of instalments of loan agreement.

cc no.-241 of 2017

He has violated the terms and conditions of loan agreement and is in default in not making payment on due dates. Despite repeated reminders, he has not cleared his over dues and due to this they had to take the truck of complainant which was already hypothecated in their favour. Complainant himself signed the loan agreement after thoroughly reading it and going through its contents and now he is bound to abide by all the terms and conditions of loan agreement, but he himself violated the terms and conditions of the loan agreement by not making payment of monthly instalments regularly in time. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

10                                    Now, it is admitted case of the parties that the complainant took a loan of Rs.12,40,000/- from OPs, which was to be repayable in 48 monthly installments and original interest on this amount was calculated as Rs.3,57,120/- with rate of interest as 7.2 %. As such, the complainant had to repay the loan amount alongwith interest in total in 48 EMIs. The complainant argued that they had paid all the installments on time and never defaulted payment of any installments, but due to recession in business owing to demonetization and come compelling family circumstances, he could not pay the loan installments and thereafter when he requested OPs to accept Rs.3lacs on account of amount due towards him, they refused to accept the amount and forcibly snatched the said truck from him. In their own letter brought on file by complainant as Ex C-1 they have mentioned rate of interest at the rate of 36% on defaulting amount, but in loan agreement Ex OP-1 which OPs themselves produced on record, they have shown rate of interest at the rate of 7.2% and both these documents are contradictory to

cc no.-241 of 2017

each other. The interest charged by OPs on defaulting amount at the rate of 36% is highly excessive and they have no right to charge such excessive rate of interest. Moreover, act of OPs in snatching away the said truck from complainant amounts to trade mal practice as complainant has repaid the loan amount to the tune of Rs.9,93,912/-to them. OPs illegally charged interest at the rate of 36% and they  have wrongly calculated the amount of Rs.11,58,783/-outstanding towards complainant.

11                                             On the other hand, opposite parties stressed that complainant failed to repay the installments on time and delayed the payment of EMIs many times and as per loan agreement they charged additional financial charges on the delayed installments @ 36% per annum. They did so as per agreement executed between the parties and as per RBI guidelines. Whereas, the complainant argued that he never agreed to pay 36% as additional finance charges on delayed payment. The opposite parties never explained the terms and conditions of the agreement at the time of giving loan. They even not supplied the copy of the agreement to them. The loan agreement was arbitrarily drafted by the opposite parties themselves and the complainant was only asked to sign it. They never read over the contents of the agreement to the complainant and they themselves levied annual finance charges on the delayed installments which are very excess than the market rate and RBI guidelines.

 

12                                               We are of the considered opinion that this type of loan agreements are of printed form type of agreements/contracts which are drafted by the finance companies themselves for their own convenience and these  

cc no.-241 of 2017

 

agreements never read over and explained by the agents of the companies to the customers and this type of contracts protect the interests of only and only of the companies, who had upper hand on the customers at the time of granting loan to them and borrowers have only to sign on the dotted lines on instructions of finance companies and the terms & conditions and hidden charges never explained to the customers at the time of sanctioning of loan and later on they levied wrong fees and charges to the borrowers and also charged interest at very excessive rate then the agreed rate on the delayed payment unilaterally. So, we cannot rely upon this type of agreements which are unilaterally and illegally prepared by the finance companies themselves for their convenience.

13                                              From the above discussion and keeping in view the record placed on file, it is observed that there is trade mal practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP in forcibly snatching the truck from complainant. By doing so, they have deprived him from earning his livelihood and enhanced his grievance. There is no doubt that due to demonetization business suffered great recession in all over nation and in these circumstances action of OPs in forcing complainant to repay the entire amount immediately is not justifiable. Record clears that complainant has made payment of huge amount in repayment of loan to OPs and is still ready to make payment of remaining amount. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are directed to overhaul the loan account of complainant and to charge interest on defaulting amount at the rate of 12% per anum instead of 36% as charged by them. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental

cc no.-241 of 2017

 

agony suffered by him including litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under section 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be sent to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 12.03.2019

     (Param Pal Kaur)                (Ajit Aggarwal)                   Member                               President