Delhi

East Delhi

CC/501/2014

RAJAT SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HOME CREDIT - Opp.Party(s)

28 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO.501/14

RAJAT SHARMA

B-34, JHILMIL COLONY

DELHI-110095

•  
•  

1. M/S HOME CREDIT INDIA FINANCE PVT. LTD.,
3.  

DLF CYBER CITY PHASE II,

BURGAON, HARYANA

 

2. M/S HOME CREDIT INDIA FINANCE PVT. LTD.,

D-43, GROUND FLOOR, JHILMIL CO.ONY,

1.  

 

                                                                                                                               ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 31.05.2014

Judgment Reserved for: 21.05.2018

Judgment Passed on: 29.05.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY: HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

JUDGEMENT

1. Jurisdiction of this forum has been invoked by Shri Rajat Sharma (Complainant) against           M/S Home Credit India Finance Pvt., Ltd., Haryana (OP-1) and M/S Home Credit India Finance Pvt., Ltd., Delhi (OP-2) with allegations of deficiency in service.
2. Facts in brief are that on 29.08.2013, the complainant purchased one Mobile Handset for Rs.10,500/- from M/S Munjal Stores, and got the same financed from M/S Home Credit India Finance Pvt., Ltd.,(OP-1). The said loan was to be repaid in ten EMI’s of Rs. 1,110/- each. It has been stated that OP was charging higher rate of interest. The complainant was informed verbally that the said loan carried rate @ 18% per annum and was to be paid back in ten EMI’s of Rs.1,110/-. The complainant has alleged that he was not informed regarding any of other terms and conditions and was made to sign without giving him opportunity to go through it. The complainant has paid more than Rs.10,450/- in eight installments for a loan of Rs.7,000/-. It has been further stated that the OP refused to share the statement of account when requested for. Thus, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant has prayed for direction to OP to refund Rs. 2,860/- paid in excess by the complainant towards the loan and issue NOC, to return the original bill of the Mobile, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused by persistent phone calls for recovery of overdue loan along with litigation expenses.

The complainant has annexed copy of invoice dated 24.08.2013 as Annexure R-1, calculation sheet as Annexure R-2, E.mails dated 08.05.2014 to OP as Annexure R-3, reply by E.mail as Annexure R-4, sanction letter has been annexed as Annexure R-5 with the complaint.

3. Written statement was filed by OP upon service of notice of the present complaint, where they took several pleas in their defence such as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement this forum did not have territorial jurisdiction, the complaint was barred by arbitration clause. It was stated that the complainant had defaulted in the payment of EMI, the complainant was informed regarding the terms and conditions and it was only upon the basis of application form submitted by the complainant and the said loan was approved, thus the complainant was bound by the terms and conditions of the contract. It was submitted that their loan account no. 3300609279 for Rs.10,500/- carried flat rate of interest @ 28.8% per annum repayable in thirteen EMI’s and complainant had agreed to pay three EMI’s in advance and the rest in ten EMI’s of Rs.1110/-. Rest of the contents of the complaint have been denied.

General terms and conditions as Annexure-1, sanction letter as Annexure-2, contract statement as Annexure-3, E.mail exchanged between complainant and OP as Annexure-4, ECS mandate as Annexure-5, consent form as Annexure-6, declaration as Annexure-7, copy of fair practice as Annexure-8, copy of invoice as Annexure-9, copy of delivery advice as Annexure-10, copy of cancelled chequeand as Annexure-11, and copy of application form as Annexure-12 have been annexed with the written statement.

4. Rejoinder was filed by the complainant where he reiterated the contents of his complaint and denied those of the written statement. It was stated that the sanction letter and general terms and conditions had not been provided to the complainant and has placed on record collection receipt dated 07.05.2014 as Annexure-A, legal notice dated 02.06.2014 as Annexure-B, reply to the legal notice by complainant as Annexure-C and reply of legal notice dated 30.06.2014 as Annexure-D.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit filed by complainant where he deposed on oath the contents of the complaint and has got exhibited the annexure annexed with the complaint such as bill of the handset dated 24.09.2013 as Ex. C-1, EMI interest charts for Rs.7000/- @18% and 113% p.a for 10 months as Ex. C-2, an E.mail to all non banking financial companies and residuary non banking companies as Ex. C-3, an E.mail to OP as Ex. C-4, reply of OP to complainant through E.mail as Ex. C-5, sanction letter as Ex. C-6, collection receipt as Ex. C-7, offer of loan from the company employee as Ex. C-8, delivery advice by Munjal Store as Ex. C-9, legal notice of OP-1 & OP-2 dated 02.06.2014 as Ex. C-10, letter to OP1 and OP-2 through complainant dated 09.06.2014 as Ex. C-11 and legal notice to complainant by OP-1 and OP-2 dated 30.06.2014.
6. OP got examined Sh. Sahil Kumar, Assistant Legal Manager who has also reiterated the contents of the written statement and has relied upon the annexure annexed in the reply such as authorization letter issued by the company to this effect in favour of Shri Sahil Kumar is annexed as Annexure as-R-2/1, the copies of consent form and application form are annexed as Annexure as-R-2/2 & Annexure as-R-2/3, the copies of sanction letter and delivery advice are annexed as Annexure as-R-2/4 & Annexure as-R-2/5, copy of GTC annexed as Annexure as-R-2/6, copy of the reply to customer query is annexed as Annexure as-R-2/7, the copy of ECS mandate form annexed as Annexure as-R-2/8, copies of retail invoice of Mobile Phone is annexed as Annexure as-R-2/9, the copy of declaration is attached is annexed as Annexure as-R-2/10, the copy of fair practice code issued by Reserve Bank of India is annexed as Annexure as-R-2/11.
7. We have heard the arguments on behalf of the father of the complainant and Learned Counsel for OP. Perusal of record reveals that Ex. C-6, sanction letter is dated 24.08.2013, and for the first time the higher rate of interest/ EMI was agitated by the complainant on 09.05.2014 by E.mail which is after a lapse of eight months. At the same time sanction letter clearly bears the signature as well as photograph of the complainant. Once the complainant has put his signatures on the application form, sanction letter, ECS mandate, he cannot take this plea that he was not informed regarding the rate of interest. The plea that he was made to sign without being informed is an afterthought. The complainant himself being a defaulter cannot allege deficiency in services on OP. Hence, present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits without order to cost.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

(Dr. P.N. TIWARI)                                                                               (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)              

      MEMBER                                                                                                    MEMBER

 

                                                      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                                    PRESIDENT