Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 496.
Instituted on : 07.09.2011.
Decided on : 02.07.2015.
Manoj Kumar s/o Sh. Muni Ram R/o Village-Pelpa, Near Chaupal, Teh. & Distt. Jhajjar.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- India Bulls House, 2nd Floor, Ashok Plaza, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Manager.
- India Bulls Financial Services Ltd., India Bulls House 448-451, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122001(Haryana), through its Director.
...................Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.B.S.Suhag, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he got financed a truck 2515 LPT bearing registration No.HR-63B-0336 from the opposite party. It is averred that on 29.03.2010 an agreement was made out between complainant and India Bulls House, Rohtak vide agreement No.LCVNRHK00060360. It is averred that the opposite party financed the truck for an amount of loan for Rs.1192000/- at the rate of interest 8.65 and a monthly installment of Rs.34137/- was to be paid by the complainant to the company till the last installment. It is averred that on 02.09.2010 the alleged truck was theft from village-Pelpa Jhajjar, and FIR No.491 dated 2.9.2010 was got lodged by the complainant on the same date and the opposite party was informed that because of theft of vehicle he was not in a position to pay the installments of the loan amount till the truck is not traced out. It is averred that an untraced report was given by the police and after that on 23.03.2011 the insurance company gave a cheque of Rs.1498500/- vide cheque No.439219 of HDFC bank. It is averred that on 15.04.2011 the opposite party made a call to the complainant for account clearance and according to the account of company a principle balance was remained Rs.956196/-. On 15.4.2011 company illegally deducted an amount of Rs.272954/- of installments, Rs.40755/- of pre payment penalty, Rs.500/- of advice and Rs.16773/- of overdues and Rs.7165/- of cur over due. So company deducted total amount of Rs.338147/- illegally from the complainant. It is averred that the opposite parties have illegally deducted the above said amount from the complainant against the rules and regulations and due to their act and conduct the complainant has suffered a huge financial loss and also suffered great mental agony and harassment. It is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.338147/- for illegally deducting by them (Rs.272954/- of installments, Rs.40755/- of pre payment penalty Rs.500/- of advice and Rs.16733/- of overdue and Rs.7165/- of cur over due) and Rs.50000/- on account of causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant
2. On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that the opposite party is a non-banking company and is being run by the money invested by its shareholders in it. It is averred that on 29.03.2010 a loan-cum-hypothecation agreement has been executed amongst complainant as borrower, one Shri Dharmender as Guarantor and opposite party company as lender. All the three parties have signed the same to tender their consents to the terms of the loan. Hence on execution thereof opposite parties had provided/financed to the complainant an amount of Rs.1192000/- which was to be repaid in 47 monthly installments of Rs.34137/- commencing from 05.05.2010 to 05.03.2014. Complainant was aware that the time was/is the essence of the contract and on his commitment of timely repayments, he had been provided with loan by the company, on the execution of the agreement. It is averred that complainant had started violating/breaching terms and conditions of repayment without honoring or paying any attention to the agreed repayment schedule of loan transaction. It is averred that complainant was served with many notices regarding repayment of loan. It is averred that the complainant has not paid any installment after 31.08.2010 on the pretext that vehicle was stolen which is not applicable in view of the loan agreement. It is submitted that it was agreed between the parties that prepayment charges and late payment penalty will be charged form the complainant by the opposite party and accordingly the amount of Rs.1264434/- was payable by the complainant to the opposite party on 15.04.2011. It is denied that the opposite party deducted total amount of Rs.338147/- illegally from the complainant as alleged. It is averred that as per clause F of the loan agreement the borrower and the guarantor shall not be entitled to prepay the loan or any part thereof prior to the due date of repayment, without the prior permission/approval of the lender. The lender will be entitled to levy a prepayment charges at the rate stipulated in the schedule on the amount so prepaid”. It is denied that the complainant has suffered a huge loss or suffered mental agony and harassment. It is prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed with heavy cost.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand opposite party in its evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.RW1/1 to Ex.RW1/19 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has contended that the insurance company gave a cheque of Rs.1498500/- vide cheque No.439219 of HDFC bank on account of theft of his vehicle and the opposite party at the time of loan account illegally deducted an amount of Rs.272954/- of installments, Rs.40755/- of pre-payment penalty, Rs.500/- of advice and Rs.16773/- of overdues and Rs.7165/- of over due. So company deducted total amount of Rs.338147/- illegally from the complainant. On the other hand, contention of ld. Counsel for the opposite party is that it was agreed between the parties that as per clause F of the loan agreement prepayment charges will be charged form the complainant by the opposite party and accordingly the amount of Rs.1264434/- was payable by the complainant to the opposite party on 15.04.2011. It is denied that the opposite party deducted total amount of Rs.338147/- illegally from the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has also placed reliance upon the law cited in 2015(2)CLT 279 titled as IDBI Bank Vs. Ashwani Kumar Srivastava whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Pre-closure penalty on loan-Bank was well within its rights in charging the pre-closure penalty from the complainant in terms of the loan agreement-there was no RBI instructions against the charging of pre-closure penalty at the relevant time-Revision petition allowed”, as per 2015(2)CLT362 titled as M/s Muthoot Finance Ltd. Vs. H.B.Mohammed & Anr. whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has held that: “Banking-Rate of interest-Early closer of loan account-Plea of OP that complainants availed loan and agreed to pay interest @23% to 28% for early closer of account and certainly parties are bound by the terms & conditions-State Commission observed in the order that rate of interest charged is contrary to RBI Circular-No RBI Circular placed on record by which charge of higher interest by OP was restricted-Held-Merely because higher rate of interest has been charged on account of early closer of SPL Loan A/c, no deficiency can be attributed on the part of OP”.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that in view of the clause F of loan agreement and the above referred case law, which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the opposite party has deducted the amount of pre-payment charges and other charges as per the agreement and therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
9. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
02.07.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
