BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

                                              Complaint Case      : 783 of 2009

                                Date of Institution  :   02.06.2009

                                        Date of Decision     :   25.11.2009

Ramandeep Chawla son of Som Nath Chawla, R/o H.No.1021, Housing Board, Dhanas, U.T., Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                                V E R S U S

1]     Incharge, India Bull Credits Services Ltd., SCO No.2449-50, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

2]     Mr. Dilbagh Singh, India Bull Credits Services Ltd, SCO 2449-50 Sector 22-C, chandigarh (OP-2 deleted vide order dt. 5.10.09).

3]     Mr. Varinder Behl, India Bull Credits Services Ltd, SCO 2449-50 Sector 22-C, Chandigarh(OP-3 deleted vide order dt. 5.10.09).

4]     Mr.Virk Incharge Customer Care, SC F-23, Phase-7, Mohali, SAS Nagar.

                                        ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:    SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL       PRESIDENT

                SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA         MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL              MEMBER

Argued by:      None for complainant.

Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OP No.1.

OP No.4 -Mr. Virk exparte.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

                The complainant availed a loan of Rs.40,000/- from OP against which a sum of Rs.38,000/- vide Ann.C-1 was released after deducting Rs.2000/- as service charges.  The said loan amount was to be repaid in 24 equated monthly installments of Rs.2033/-, which was cleared by the complainant timely vide Ann.C-2.  It is averred that at the time of availing the loan from OP, the complainant instead of 24 cheques of Rs.2033/- inadvertently issued 48 cheques of Rs.2033/- as the tenure of repayment was inadvertently shown as 48 months whereas the term tenure was only 24 months.   It is also averred that the complainant after paying the entire loan amount through 24 EMIs, approached the OP and requested them to return the remaining 24 cheques, but, the OPs with malafide intentions came out with Annexure C-4 showing the outstanding loan balance of Rs.30,000/-, which was totally wrong & illegal.  It is further averred that the OPs vide Ann.C-4 is charging unjustified interest amount of Rs.57,000/- on the loan amount of Rs.40,000/-, showing the highly inflated rate of interest being charged by any financial institution in the country.  It is next averred that due to above illegal, arbitrary, deficient act as well as unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs, the complainant had to suffer great mental tension & physical harassment.  Therefore, the present complaint has been filed.

2]             OP No.1 filed reply stating interalia that the loan in question was to be repaid in 48 monthly installments.  It is denied that the number of installments were inadvertently mentioned as 48 instead of 24 and that the OP has ever received 48 cheques, as alleged.  It is admitted that complainant paid 26 installments towards the repayment of loan in question.  It is also stated that no balance cheques are lying with the OP No.1 and in fact the payment was being made through standing ECS instructions.  It is further stated that the complainant had to pay 22 more installments along with applicable charges towards complete repayment of the loan availed by him.  As regard the charging of interest, it is submitted that under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, Section 21-A, no court shall go into a dispute relating to the rate of interest to be charged.  Rest of the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed qua answering OP.  The names of OP no. 2 and 3 were deleted vide order dated 5.10.09 in view of the statement made by Counsel for the complainant.

3]             OP No.4 Mr.Virk, Incharge Customer Care, did not turn up despite having been duly served with the notice, hence he was proceeded against exparte.

4]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions

5]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for OP no. 1 and have also perused the record.

6]             In order to prove his contention the Learned Counsel has referred to annexure C-3, which was allegedly given to the complainant by the agent who had discussion with him regarding this loan.  The complainant has not produced the said agent nor annexure C-3 is proved according to the law.  In fact, this is the application moved by the complainant himself and it appears interpolation was made subsequently to mention the digit 24 in the third line of the application to show that there were only 24 installments to be paid by him.  This application could be fabricated by the complainant subsequently because it is admitted by the complainant that he had issued 48 post dated cheques to the OP.  It is also admitted by him that in the status card dated 27.04.08 annexure C-4 the tenure is mentioned to be 48 and the frequency is monthly which means that there are 48 monthly installments for the payment of the loan.  Annexure A is the loan agreement in condition number 12 of which also the number of monthly installments is mentioned to be 48.  Again in the schedule the number of equated monthly installments to be paid by the borrower is mentioned as 48 annexure D is the status card dated 24.08.09 in which also the 48 installments are mentioned. There are no documents produced by the complainant, which show that loan was repayable in 24 installments. His contention that there were only 24 installments which he has already paid cannot be accepted.

7]             In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.