Date of filing: 07.02.2020
Date of disposal: 08.03.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.,ICWA (Inter), B.L., ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.12/2020
THIS WEDNESDAY, THE 08th DAY OF MARCH 2023
Mr.E.Nagarajan, S/o.Elumalai,
No.111, M.T.H.Road,
Thirumullaivoyal, Chennai 600 062. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
1.Indian Overseas Bank,
Rep. by its Senior Manager Mr.Babu paul,
Avadi Branch, Avadi, Chennai 54.
2.The Regional Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Regional Office,
No.763, New Building Annex,
3rd Floor, Annasalai, Chennai 600 002. ......Opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.T.Muthamilselvi, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite parties : M/s.V.Alamelu Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 27.02.2023 in the presence of M/s.T.Muthamilselvi Advocate, counsel for the complainant and M/s.V.Alamelu Advocate, counsel for the opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service in the matter of disbursement of the sanction loan and in collecting the EMIs along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony to the complainant.
Summary of the facts culminating into complaint:-
It was the case of the complainant that he submitted his application to get subsidy from TAHDCO, Thiruvallur and the same was admitted by the TAHDCO. The complainant want to buy a Tourister Vehicle Eacher 12+1 seater van with help of TAHDCO. TAHDCO sent notice to the complainant on 17.08.2016 for an interview and the same was attended by him. Thereafter TAHDCO passed an order of recommendation on 16.09.2016 to the 1st opposite party. One Mr.Durai who is the previous Manager of opposite party took on file, the complainant vehicle loan application and issued sanction letter on 09.03.2017 for the vehicle Tourister Vehicle Eacher 12+1 seater van. After that within a week the above said Mr.Durai got retired from his job. The 1st opposite party who was appointed as the new Manager refused to disburse the loan amount to the complainant and further instructed the complainant to purchase sedan model car and also said that complainant is not eligible for the sanctioned loan of Rs.9,99,998/-. The 1st opposite party adamantly refused to disburse the sanctioned loan amount. Without any other option the complainant finally agreed to purchase Swift Dzire car, since he is not ready to lose the subsidy from TAHDCO. The 1st opposite party called the complainant on 19.01.2018 and instructed him to pay the initial amount of Rs.80,000/- and the the subsidy of Rs.2,25,000/- would be deducted at the time of closing of loan, which is very shock and surprise to the complainant because the subsidy amount of Rs.2,25,000/- should be deducted from the sale price of the car and the balance amount only would be treated as vehicle loan. Thus the complainant gave a complaint to the District Collector, Thiruvallur on 29.01.2018 against the 1st opposite party. After this incident as per the instruction of the Thiruvllur TAHDCO DM, voluntarity the 1st opposite party disbursed the cheque of Rs.7,79,386/- in favour of ABT Maruthi for Swift Dzire car on 06.04.2018 vide loan Account No.000803710000004. The complainant purchased the car on 18.04.2018 and he started his own business and he paid Rs.10,676/- per month as EMI to the loan. After 5th EMI, the complainant’s account was shown as ‘Nil’ balance. Thus the complainant went to 1st opposite party and their subordinates gave evasive reply to the complainant and informed they had deducted some amount for insurance. The 1st opposite party did not get any permission to take any insurance from the complainant. The complainant each and every month paid the monthly EMI regularly, but the 1st opposite party sent SMS for overdue amount of the complainant account in each and every month. The complainant came to the bank directly and enquired about the overdue amount but opposite parties gave evasive replies to the complainant. Thus the complainant sent notice to the 1st opposite party on 12.12.2018 and 25.02.2019 but they did not send any reply to the complainant till date. The opposite parties again sent alert SMS for overdue amount of Rs.30,064/- and sent another alert SMS for maintaining minimum average which is causing mental agony to the complainant. Thus aggrieved the present complaint was filed for the relief to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation to the complainant.
Defence of the opposite parties:-
The opposite parties filed version stating that the complainant had approached the 1st opposite party for availing a vehicle loan under TAHDCO scheme. Initially the complainant wanted to buy a Tourister Vehicle costing Rs.9,99,998/-. After elaborate discussions with the Manager on marketable approach and repayment terms, the complainant only agreed for availing loan for buying Swift Dzire car. Accordingly the complainant was sanctioned an amount of Rs.7,21,000/- under Loan Account No.000803710000004 on 06.04.2018. The complainant had executed all loan documents dated 06.04.2018 viz., demand Promissory Note for Rs.7,21,000/-@10,00%p.a., Credit sanction advice, Agreement of Term loan and Hypothecation (PL-7). The loan was repayable in 59 equal installments of Rs.10,676/- each after adjustment of front end subsidy of Rs.2,25,000/- and repayment commenced from May 2018. For availing a loan under TAHDCO scheme an initial margin amount of 5% would be deposited by the borrower. Hence as against the margin money after availing loan only the borrower can avail a subsidy. The present borrower had a subsidy amount of Rs.2,25,000/- sanctioned by TAHDCO which was also credited in his loan account as front end subsidy. There is no basis for drawing a conclusion by the complainant that the subsidy amount would be deducted from the sale price of the car and the balance amount only would be treated as vehicle loan. It is pertinent to note that customer interests are primary interest of the company. Every month there would be a deduction of the installment amount of Rs.10,676/- from the account of the complainant automatically and this fact was also brought to the notice of the complainant and informed to him many times. Therefore the averment of the complainant that his account showed nil balance is not a fault of the opposite parties. As the loan comes under ‘CGTSME’ scheme and the term used as Insurance in the complaint is nothing but the said CGTSME fee for the scheme which was debited to the loan account. Complainant has to pay the EMI every month and there was some over due in his account. Periodical SMS would be sent to each and every borrower including the complainant being a borrower on his overdues. Thus, the opposite parties sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.23 were marked. On the side of opposite parties proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.10 were marked on their side.
Point for consideration:-
Whether the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties has been successfully proved by the complainant in the matter of disbursement of the sanctioned loan and in collecting the EMIs from the complainant?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point:1
On the side of complainant the following documents were filed in proof of complaint allegations;
Proforma Invoice by Hex Mobiles Private Limited authorized dealer in Eicher given to the complainant dated 04.03.2016 was marked as Ex.A1;
Acknowledgement for registering in the TAHDCO dated 09.03.2016 was marked as Ex.A2;
Interview letter sent by TAHDCO to the complainant dated 17.08.2016 was marked as Ex.A3;
Letter sent by TAHDCO to the 1st opposite party dated 16.09.2016 was marked as Ex.A4;
Letter sent to the District Manager, TAHDCO by the 1st opposite party regarding sanctioning of the loan amount dated 09.03.2017 was marked as Ex.A5;
Memo issued by TAHDCO to the complainant dated 30.05.2017 was marked as Ex.A6;
Proceedings by TAHDCO for sanctioning of the loan applied by the complainant dated 07.06.2017 was marked as Ex.A7;
Sanction letter issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant dated 03.01.2018 was marked as Ex.A8;
Complaint letter given to District Collector by the complainant along with acknowledgment dated 29.01.2018 was marked as Ex.A9;
Subsidy claim sent by the 1st opposite party to Indian Bank, Thiruvallur dated 15.03.2018 was marked as Ex.A10;
Cheque issued by the 1st opposite party for amount of Rs.7,59,386/- vide cheque No.164764 to ABT Maruthi dated 06.04.2018 was marked as Ex.A11;
Receipt issued by the ABT Maruthi vide voucher No.42 dated 07.04.2018 was marked as Ex.A12;
Registration Certificate of the vehicle TN 13 M 1891 in the name of complainant was marked as Ex.A13;
Insurance Policy issued by Royal Sundaram for the complainant’s vehicle dated 10.04.2018 was marked as Ex.A14;
Complaint letter to the 1st opposite party regarding non accessibility of the bank account dated 12.12.2018 was marked as Ex.A15;
Letter sent to the RTI Officer, Indian Overseas Bank along with acknowledgement card dated 25.02.2019 was marked as Ex.A16;
Acknowledgement card was marked as Ex.A17;
Insurance Policy issued by Royal Sundaram for the complainant’s vehicle dated 06.04.2019 was marked as Ex.A18;
Bank transaction details of the complainant from 01.04.2018 to 07.06.2019 was marked as Ex.A19;
Bank transaction enquiry copy from 01.04.2018 to 07.06.2019 was marked as Ex.A20;
Legal notice sent to the opposite parties dated 19.07.2019 was marked as Ex.A21;
Acknowledgement cards was marked as Ex.A22;
Reply notice from the opposite parties to the complainant dated 24.07.2019 was marked as Ex.A23;
On the side of opposite parties the following documents were filed in proof of their contentions;
Credit sanction advice dated 03.04.2018 and Demand Promissory Note dated 06.04.2018 was marked as Ex.B1;
Undertaking letter from the borrower in Annexure – 2 dated 06.04.2018 was marked as Ex.B2;
Form –F- 378 was marked as Ex.B3;
Revised Demand Promissory Note for Rs.68,000/- was marked as Ex.B4;
Credit Sanction Advice dated 25.08.2020 was marked as Ex.B5;
Undertaking letter from the borrower in Annexure – 2 dated 20.08.2020 was marked as Ex.B6;
Form –F-378 was marked as Ex.B7;
Hypothecation of Agreement was marked as Ex.B8;
Statement of Account for small loan Mudra from 05.04.2018 to 25.01.2023 was marked as Ex.B9;
Statement of Account for GECL account from 24.08.2020 to 25.01.2023 was marked as Ex.A10;
The complainant filed written arguments and endorsed that the written arguments may be treated as oral arguments. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties adduced oral arguments along with written arguments. We perused the pleadings and material evidences produced by both the parties.
The crux of the written arguments produced by the complainant is that he was recommended loan for purchase of a TOURISTER VEHICLE EACHER 12+A SEATER VAN on his application to get subsidy from TAHDCO. When the complainant approached the 1st opposite party along with the recommendation order, one Mr.Durai who was the previous Manager sanctioned the same however, the present Manager though the complainant was eligible, sanctioned only Rs.7,59,386/- for the purchase of a SWIFT DZIRE CAR. Further he was also asked to pay the initial amount of Rs.88,000/-. Though the complainant was regularly paying the EMI Rs.10,676/- without any default, the opposite parties caused mental agony by continuously sending SMS on overdue amount and also for payment of EMIs. Thus he sought for the complaint to be allowed.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties argued that the allegations made by the complainant that the loan was sanctioned for TOURISTER VEHICLE EACHER 12+A SEATER VAN however loan disbursement made for SWIFT DZIRE CAR was false. Further the complainant was not regularly paying the EMIs and SMS alerts for EMIs payment could not be considered as causing mental agony. It is further argued that the complainant could have avoided the loan if he is not satisfied with it, thus stating that the complainant is enjoying the subsidy availed but was not able to understand about the loan sanction, disbursement and on grant of subsidy was alleging deficiency in service against them. Thus the counsel sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
On perusal of the materials produced by the complainant we could see that as per document Ex.A5 dated 09.03.2017 a letter was sent to the TAHDCO by the 1st opposite party with regard to the sanctioning of the loan. In the said letter it is seen that the bank has informed the District Manager, TAHDCO that they have sanctioned loan to purchase TOURISTER VEHICLE EACHER 12+A SEATER VAN at a cost of Rs.9,99,998/- and requesting the TAHDCO to release the eligible subsidy to the Branch. Further the memo issued by TAHDCO to the complainant with regard to the training to be provided to the peoples who were sanctioned loan was marked as Ex.A6. In all these documents it is seen that Rs.9,99,998/-has been sanctioned for the purchase of TOURISTER VEHICLE EACHER 12+A SEATER VAN. However, vide Ex.A10 it is seen that Rs.7.59 lakhs was sanctioned to the complainant for the purchase of SWIFT DZIRE CAR. The reason assigned by the complainant for reduction of loan amount is that the Previous Manager who sanctioned the loan has got transferred and the present Manager did not disburse the amount and permitted only the loan proceedings for the purchase of a SWIFT DZIRE CAR. At this instance, the argument advanced by the opposite parties assumes significance that the loan is sanctioned only after seeing the eligibility of the parties and the ability to repay the loan. In the facts and circumstances we are in confirmity with the view expressed by the learned counsel for the opposite parties and hold that mere sanction of loan for the purchase of TOURISTER VEHICLE EACHER 12+A SEATER VAN by TAHDCO will not confer any right on the complainant to claim sanction from the bank I.e., mere sanction will not credit any right for the customer to avail loan from the bank and the customer cannot claim it as a matter of right.
With regard to the allegation raised by the complainant that the amount was taken from his account causing him shock and unable to withdraw any amount from his account, it is seen that the said amount has been withdrawn by the opposite parties towards payment of installments which could not be found fault with. Another allegation raised by the complainant is that the opposite parties are causing mental agony by sending SMS to the complainant for payment the installment amounts and that inspite of him paying the amount regularly some overdue is claimed by the opposite parties. The said allegations could not entertained by this commission, for the allegation that inspite of the complainant paying the EMIS regularly the opposite parties is claiming overdue amount, the complainant has not produced complete loan repayment details to show that there is no default on his part in repaying the EMIs.
In said circumstances we are of the view that no deficiency could be imposed on the opposite parties on sanctioning and disbursement of loan as it is not mandatory for the complainant to avail the same if he is not satisfied with it. Thus availing the loan and also in repaying it, the complainant cannot raise any allegations against the bank. Further the TAHDCO was also not made a party to the proceedings. In such circumstances we are of the view that the allegations raised by the complainant with regard to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties was not proved by complainant and we hold that no deficiency in service was committed by the opposite parties. Thus we answer the point accordingly against the complainant and in favour of the opposite parties.
Point No.2:-
As we have held above that the complainant had failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, she is not entitled to any reliefs as claimed in the complaint from the opposite party. Thus we answer the point accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 08th day of March 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 04.03.2016 Pro-forma Invoice by Hex Mobiles Private Limited authorized dealer in Eicher given to the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A2 09.03.2016 Acknowledgement for registering in the TAHDCO. Xerox
Ex.A3 17.08.2016 Interview letter sent by TAHDCO to the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A4 16.09.2016 Letter sent by TAHDCO to the 1st opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A5 09.03.2017 Letter sent to the District Manager, TAHDCO by the 1st opposite party regarding sanctioning of the loan amount. Xerox
Ex.A6 30.05.2017 Memo issued by TAHDCO to the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A7 07.06.2017 Proceedings by TAHDCO for sanctioning of the loan applied by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A8 03.01.2018 Sanction letter issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A9 29.01.2018 Complaint letter given to District Collector by the complainant along with acknowledgment. Xerox
Ex.A10 15.03.2018 Subsidy claim sent by the 1st opposite party to Indian Bank, Thiruvallur. Xerox
Ex.A11 06.04.2018 Cheque issued by the 1st opposite party for amount of Rs.7,59,386/- vide cheque No.164764 to ABT Maruthi. Xerox
Ex.A12 07.04.2018 Receipt issued by the ABT Maruthi vide voucher No.42. Xerox
Ex.A13 .............. Registration Certificate of the vehicle TN 13 M 1891 in the name of complainant. Xerox
Ex.A14 10.04.2018 Insurance Policy issued by Royal Sundaram for the complainant’s vehicle. Xerox
Ex.A15 12.12.2018 Complaint letter to the 1st opposite party regarding non accessibility of the bank account. Xerox
Ex.A16 25.02.2019 Letter sent to the RTI Officer, Indian Overseas Bank along with acknowledgement card. Xerox
Ex.A17 Acknowledgement card. Xerox
Ex.A18 06.04.2019 Insurance Policy issued by Royal Sundaram for the complainant’s vehicle. Xerox
Ex.A19 ............... Bank transaction details of the complainant from 01.04.2018 to 07.06.2019. Xerox
Ex.A20 ............. Bank transaction enquiry copy from 01.04.2018 to 07.06.2019. Xerox
Ex.A21 19.07.2019 Legal notice sent to the opposite parties. Xerox
Ex.A22 .................. Acknowledgement card. Xerox
Ex.A23 24.07.2019 Reply notice from the opposite parties to the complainant. Xerox
List of document filed the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 .............. Credit sanction advice dated 03.04.2018 and Demand Promissory Note dated 06.04.2018. Xerox
Ex.B2 06.04.2018 Undertaking letter from the borrower in Annexure – 2. Xerox
Ex.B3 Form –F- 378 Xerox
Ex.B4 Revised Demand Promissory Note for Rs.68,000/- Xerox
Ex.B5 25.08.2020 Credit Sanction Advice. Xerox
Ex.B6 20.08.2020 Undertaking letter from the borrower in Annexure – 2. Xerox
Ex.B7 ................ Form –F- 378. Xerox
Ex.B8 ............... Hypothecation of Agreement. Xerox
Ex.B9 ............. Statement of Account for small loan Mudra from 05.04.2018 to 25.01.2023. Xerox
Ex.B10 ................ Statement of Account for GECL account from 24.08.2020 to 25.01.2023. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
