Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.8.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint of the complainant(now appellant). 2. In the month of November, 2006, the complainant availed of a loan of Rs.1,89,000/- for purchase of Tata Sumo. The amount of loan was to be repaid in 36 equal monthly instalments of Rs.5,888/- each. At the time of advancement of loan, the OP(now respondent) had taken the signatures of the complainant, on the blank agreement and other blank papers. It was stated that initially few instalments of Rs.5,888/- were deducted from the bank account of the complainant. Thereafter, the OPs started deducting Rs.6,833/- each as instalment, from his bank account. When an inquiry was made, the representative of the OP bank, told that the extra amount would be adjusted in the later instalments. In the month of August 2009, the complainant went to the OP for foreclosure of loan account and asked for the outstanding amount. At that time, he was told by the officials of the OP that the said loan was to be repaid in 36 equal monthly instalments of Rs.6,833/- each and not of Rs.5,888/- each. It was further stated that the OP manipulated and forged the blank papers, to charge extra amount from the complainant. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by him. 3. The OP, in its reply, admitted that a loan of Rs.1,89,000/- was availed of by the complainant, in November,2006, from it. It was also admitted that an agreement was entered into between the parties, at the time of financing of loan. It was further stated that as per terms and conditions of the agreement, the loan was to be repaid in 36 equal monthly instalments of Rs.6833/- each , except the first installment, which was of Rs.5,888/-, as an additional amount of Rs.945/- was payable(adding to Rs.6,833/-) towards the credit facility origination charges. It was further stated that the first installment of Rs.5,888/- was captured, in the computer system, inadvertently, and notices continued to be issued to the complainant in accordance with the same just because an error had taken place, in the computer system, aforesaid. It was further stated that the complainant wanted to take benefit of that inadvertent error. It was further stated that the complainant was a chronic defaulter, as on 5.04.2010, he was liable to pay instalments, overdue, in the sum of Rs.48,609/- and late payment and other charges of Rs.23,188/-. In this manner, the total amount which was due against the complainant, as on 5.4.2010, was Rs.71,797/-. It was denied that there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OP, or it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations were denied , being wrong. 4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that infact the loan, which was availed of, by the complainant, from the OP bank, was to be repaid in 36 equal monthly instalments of Rs.6833/- each, the first installment being of Rs.5888/-. The District Forum, thus, came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OP, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed, by the appellant/complainant. 7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, no doubt, the loan was availed of, in the aforesaid sum, by the complainant, from the OP and it was to be repaid in 36 equal monthly instalments of Rs.5888/- each, but the OP illegally claimed, equal monthly instalment @ Rs.6833/- each. He further submitted that the signatures of the complainant were obtained on a blank agreement, and other blank papers, at the time of advancement of loan to him and, as such, he(complainant) did not know, as to what was written, in those documents, later on, by the OP. He further submitted that, as such, the OP was deficient, in rendering service and indulged into unfair trade practice, but the District Forum fell into a grave error, in dismissing the complaint. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to set aside. 9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that, at the time of availing of loan, by the complainant, he executed an agreement, as also other documents, which were duly filled in. He further submitted that signatures of the complainant were not obtained on blank papers. He further submitted that, as per the repayment schedule mentioned in R1, the repayment of loan was to be made in 36 equal monthly instalments of Rs.6833/- each , except the first instalment, which was of Rs.5888/-. He further submitted that the detail of monthly instalments is given in R2. He further submitted that even the complainant continued making payment of instalments @ Rs.6833/- per month, vide payment receipts C-6 to C-23 and never raised any protest. He further submitted that the District Forum was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that the OP was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. There is, no dispute, with regard to the factum, that the complainant availed of loan, in the sum of Rs.1,89,000/-, in November,2006, for the purchase of Tata Sumo from the OP. The question for determination, is, as to whether, the loan was to be repaid in equal monthly instalments of Rs.6833/- each except the first instalment of Rs.5888/- or not ? R-2 is the detail of instalments which were to be paid by the complainant to the OP. R-2 is attached with annexure R-1. From R2 document, it is evident that the first instalment which was to be paid by the complainant towards the repayment of loan, was of Rs.5888/-. The remaining instalments, mentioned therein, are of Rs.6833/- per month. R-2 document ,thus, supports the contention of the Counsel for the OP that the first instalment was of Rs.5888/-. While issuing notices C-2, C-4 & C-5, the computer picked up the amount of Rs.5888/- which related to the first instalment. It was, in this manner, that the computer mistake, which once occurred, continued to be repeated, in the aforesaid notices. Even in R1 loan agreement, the amount of monthly instlment mentioned is Rs.6833/-. Not only this, the complainant continued making payment of monthly instalments @ Rs.6833/- each vide annexures C-6 to C-23 the payment receipts. In case, the monthly instalment was of Rs.5888/-, then what was the necessity of making payment of monthly instalments of Rs.6833/-each vide the receipts aforesaid. It means that the complainant very well knew that only the first intalment was of Rs.5833/- and subsequent instalments were of Rs.6833/- per month. The complainant, therefore, could not take benefit of the computer mistake, which, in the first instance, occurred in the legal notice C-2, as it picked up the figure of Rs.5888/-, which amount related to the first instalment. Later on, this amount was inadvertently depicted, in the legal notices C-4 & C-5. The complainant, thus, could not say that the excess amount had been charged from him by the OP. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that the OP was not deficient, in rendering service. 11. The next question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether the signatures of the complainant were obtained on the blank agreement and other blank papers. There is nothing, on record, about any fraud having been played upon the complainant, or that he was under pressure at the time of signing the blank documents. The bald statement of the complainant, to the effect, that his signatures were taken on blank papers is not, at all believable. He did not take up such a plea, immediately after allegedly signing the blank documents . Had his signatures been obtained on blank agreement and blank papers, he would have either raised protest, at the time of signing of those documents, or immediately thereafter by writing a letter to the OP, or to the concerned authority that he had been deceived by the OP. He did not do so. He woke up from his deep slumber, after a very long time, when he filed the complaint. It was just an afterthought plea which was taken by him and no reliance could be placed thereon. Even if, it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the complainant had signed the blank documents, then it cannot be said, that he was not liable for its consequences. He had signed the documents with eyes wide open. He was not under pressure of anybody, nor it has been alleged, nor proved. If a person signs the blank documents, at the time of advancement of loan, in his favour, then he authorizes his creditor to fill up those documents, and later on, cannot turn round that those were blank when he signed the same. Thus, this plea of the complainant, was rightly turned down by the District Forum. The OP, therefore, could not be said to have indulged into unfair trade practice. 12. No other argument was advanced by the Counsel for the parties. 13. The order rendered by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission . 14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.3000/-. 15. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 16. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
