By  Smt. Bindu.R,  President:        

 This complaint is filed by Domanic Saviyo N.M, Nacheriyil House,  Pulpally,  Wayanad District  who is retired  Army Soldier and  Senior Citizen against   Indus Ind Marketing and Financial Services and another  alleging  deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.  The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant bought a Maruti Swift ZXI model car for his personal use from Indus Motors Sulthan Bathery on 25.11.2015  and  registered before the  Regional Transport Officer, Sulthan Bathery as KL 73/A/2584.  The total cost of the car was Rs.6,56,988/-  and the Complainant states that he approached the 1^st  Opposite Party through Indus Motors Ltd for a car loan and on 25.11.2015 and availed a car loan for Rs.3,00,000/-  from the 1^st  Opposite Party bank.  Complainant states that the EMI calculated was for sixty consecutive months for which a loan cum hypothecation agreement was executed as loan account No.EDQ01883C and it is alleged in the complaint that no copy of the same has furnished to the Complainant.  It is stated  by the Complainant that in the loan repayment schedule  55 instalments were shown as Rs.7,260/-  and the last instalment due  date was shown as 21.05.2020 by reducing 60 months to 55 months.  Complainant states that the loan amount Rs.3,00,000/-  sanctioned from the Opposite Party bank was transferred  to the dealer firm Indus Motors directly and no receipt in this regard was given to the Complainant.  It is stated by the complainant that from 25.11.2015 onwards,  the Complainant was making payments at the rate of Rs.7,260/-  in equal monthly  instalments and in addition to the said amount Rs.4,120/-  was also taken towards documentation and handling charges on 25.11.2015.  At the beginning  the Complainant’s son was making payment and during July 2016  and September 2016,  the Complainant received  from the Opposite Party bank, two intimations on various dates that one cheque  was returned and the Complainant went to the Opposite Party bank and made payment for the month of July 2016,  in August 2016  and the payment for the month of September 2016, in October 2016, with additional charges directly by cash.  Complainant states that the Complainant was making payment from October 2016 onwards without making any defaults.  There after the Complainant requested  to recover the amount through ECS  from the Complainant’s Account No.20367098170 maintained at SBI, Kappiset Branch, Pulpally from 2017 February onwards and it was being complied till 09.01.2020 Complainant further states that,  the Opposite Party bank had debited two excess withdrawal  through ECS from the account of the Complainant  on 26.11.2019 and 23.12.2019 in addition to the normal instalment debits on 21.11.2019 and 21.12.2019 and on request,  the Opposite Party had given a statement of account to the Complainant omitting  the two excess remittances.  Complainant  states that it is  a clear fraudulent  transaction and according to the Complainant there is unfair trade practice from the  part of the Opposite Party. Complainant states that on enquiry the Opposite Parties replied that there was a default in payment on 21.05.2016 as the cheque was returned and that amount was also deducted,  and according to the Complainant the statement  of Opposite Party is not correct and  the Complainant was not informed about the due default amount by the Opposite Party when the Complainant visited the branch for remitting the instalments in October 2016 to January 2017.  Complainant states that it could have been informed to the Complainant and demanded the default amount as and when it was made default by the Complainant and according to the Complainant the remittance done after the default date should have been credited and adjusted to the default. Complainant states  that the Opposite Party bank considered  it  as  non-remittance and  the default amount was  calculated with exorbitant compound interest.  Subsequently the Complainant visited the Opposite party bank on 07.01.2020 and  enquired about the procedure for premature closure of the loan and obtain NOC from the bank to avoid further exploitation.  Then the Manager of Opposite Party demanded  Rs.39,750/-  instead of actual  due amount Rs.21,480/-  pending.  Complainant states that it is told that the excess amount   Rs.18,270/-  was  the default amount for the month of 21.05.2016.  The Complainant states that the Complainant who was a senior citizen and a heart patient had suffered a lot, due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party and hence the  Complainant approached this Commission praying for an order 1)  Directing  the Opposite Party bank to adjust  the excess amount of Rs.14,520/-  debited from the Complainant’s bank account towards the future repayment of loan with the Opposite Party in loan account  No.EDQ01883C and close the loan after receiving the balance amount and for  other reliefs.

          2. Upon notice from this Commission the Opposite Parties appeared and filed their  common Version, stating that the Complainant entered into a loan agreement on 07.04.2018 and availed finance for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-  for the purchase of the vehicle Maruti Swift ZXI 1197 CC BS 111 and agreed to repay the same with interest totalling Rs.3,99,749.94  in equal monthly instalments.  The contract period for this loan has been fixed from 25/11/2015  to 21/09/2020 payable on or before the 21^st  day of  every month.  These 59 months is including 3 month moratorium period due to the covid 19- pandemic and loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/-  has been transferred to dealership of the vehicle.  An amount of Rs.4,120/-   has  collected from the Complainant towards loan processing  charges and premium for GPA and the monthly instalment for the loan was Rs.7,260/-.  It  is contented in the version that there  was default in May 2016,  July 2016 and September 2016 and  the Complainant had regularised only two instalments against three defaulted instalments.  It is  stated in the version that additional  interest has been occurred  in the Complainant’s loan account due to the default in repayment. When the Complainant has not regularised the account  even after repeated demands notice to pay an amount of Rs.10,815/-  to regularise  the account has been issued and it is  contented that in order to recover the said overdue amount in the month of  November 2019 and December 2019, the Opposite  Party recovered Rs.7,260/- in addition  to monthly instalments and the same is duly accounted in the  statement of account  of the loan transaction and it is  due to the failure on the part of the Complainant in repayment of loan instalments in time,  the defaulted instalments are accumulated  as overdue amount and it is not admitted by the Opposite Party that the  overdue  recovery is against the repayment chart.  It is contented by the Opposite Party that the non payment of EMI during  21.05.2016 has been intimated to the Complainant but neglected to regularise the loan account and it is also stated  by the Opposite Party that the cheque  dated 23.05.2016 issued  by the Complainant has been  dishonoured  due to  insufficiency of fund and the additional interest calculated only on the pending overdue amount and the charging of additional interest is clearly mentioned in the loan agreement.  When the Complainant approached the bank seeking for fore closure of his loan account,  the officials provide the final statement of account on 21.12.2020 and an amount of Rs.19,312/-  was pending in the loan account as principal outstanding and also an amount of Rs.4,745/-  towards  additional interest.  As such the Complainant is liable  to pay an amount of Rs.24,058/-  for full and final  settlement of his loan account.  There is  no deficiency of service from the  side of the Opposite Party bank and the Complainant is not entitled for any compensation from the Opposite parties.  It is also submitted by the Opposite parties that they are always ready and willing to issue  NOC for hypothecation cancellation once he settles the entire contractual liability.  It is  also stated by the Opposite Parties that even after the expiry of the period of loan transaction on 21.12.2020, still an amount  of Rs.24,058/-  for full and final settlement of his loan account and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          3. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A7 and X1series from the side of the Complainant and oral evidence  of OPW1 from the side of Opposite Party.

          4. The following are the points to be analised to bring out  the facts of the  case:

1.  Whether the Complainant has sustained to any loss or deficiency of service from the side of the Opposite Party?
2. If proved,  the quantum of compensation or relief to be given to the complainant.
3. Cost of proceedings.

5. The Commission has made a though analysis made by the Complainant in

his Complainant and examined  the records produced,  we also have probed into the evidences of the Opposite Party like the version etc. 

          6. During cross examination  of PW1 the Complainant admitted that he has no objection  with respect  to Ext.X1 series the transaction details produced  by the Opposite Party.  It is admitted by PW1 that the monthly instalment is Rs.7,260/-  and he pleads  ignorance about the moratorium  and the defaults made during May, July and September 2016.  At the same time the Complainant deposed in the box  that the instalments of July and September were paid and he pleads  ignorance about the details of agreement.  It is also admitted by the Complainant that as per X1 series,  the balance outstanding as on 01.12.2020  is  Rs.19,312.66  and denied the liability of payment of interest of Rs.4,745/-.

          7. The Complainant had availed  the loan facility from the  Opposite Parties for the purchase of a car  which  is accepted by  both the sides.  The Complainant was repaying the instalments as per the agreement and the Opposite Party states that there are some default instalments from the side of the Complainant.  The Opposite party had  also  failed to establish with any documentary evidence about the default in payment and  not produced the copy of  intimation letters send to the Complainant regarding the default in instalments.  More over it is seen that the Opposite Party had accepted further instalments from the Complainant without accounting  that amount into the previously detailed instalments which amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  In  the absence of documentary evidence and on the basis of account statements regarding the transaction,  what is coming out is that the Complainant had paid back the principal  amount and interest to the Opposite Party.  There is not even an iota of evidence to establish the argument of the Opposite Party that still  there is due outstanding from the Complainant.  Facts being so the Complainant established  deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party and there by point No.1 is proved in favour of the Complainant.  Since point No.1 is proved  the following orders are issued.

1.  The 2^nd  Opposite Party is directed to issue NOC to the Complainant for producing  the same before  Regional Transport Officer,  Sulthan Bathery to remove the hypothecation endorsement in the  RC.
2. An amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only)  shall be given by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant as compensation.
3. Cost of proceedings of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) is  also awarded to the Complainant.

Needless to say that   the  above direction are to be  complied  with by the

Opposite Parties within  one month  from the date of receipt of the copy of  the order.    Otherwise the Complainant will be entitled for interest  at the rate of  8% for the compensation awarded from the  date of order till the date of realisation.

          Hence  the complaint is partly allowed.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission  on this the 26^th    day of July 2023.

Dated of filing:04.02.2020                                                      

PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

MEMBER :   Sd/-

MEMBER :   Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1.           Domanic Saviyo. N.M.            Complainant.                          

Witness for the Opposite Party:

OPW1.        Subhash. A                              Branch Manager, Indus Ind Bank.     

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1 (a)         Statement of Transaction for A/c No.20367098170.

A1 (b)         Statement of Transaction for A/c No.20367098170.

A2 (a)         Copy of Letter.                         dt:09.01.2020.

A2(b)          Acknowledgment.

A2(c)          Acknowledgment.

A3(a)          Copy of Letter.                         dt:21.01.2020.

A3(b)          Acknowledgment.

A3(c )         Acknowledgment.

A3(d)          Acknowledgment.

A3(e)          Acknowledgment.

A3(f)           Postal Receipt.

A3(g)          Postal Receipt.

A3(h)          Postal Receipt.

A3(i)           Postal Receipt.

A4.             Letter.

A5.             Copy of Statement of Account.

A6.             Copy of Statement of Account from 01.01.2020 to 30.06.2020.

A7.             Account Statement from 01.01.2017 to 31.12.2017.        

Exhibit for the Opposite Party:

X1 series.    Copy of  Statement of Accounts.

                                                                                    PRESIDENT:   Sd/-

MEMBER :    Sd/-

MEMBER :    Sd/-