Date of filing:      05.04.2019

                                                                                                                                 Date of disposal : 28.04.2023

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                 .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., B.L.,                                                     .....MEMBER - I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.ICWA(Inter),B.L.,                                        ....MEMBER-II

RBT/CC. No.99/2022

THIS FRIDAY, THE 28th DAY OF APRIL 2023

(CC.No.92/2019 sent from DCDRC, Chennai North)

 

J.Joseph Christi Bernard Joseph,

S/o.A.E.Joseph,

No.40/25, Flag Staff Street,

Royapuram, Chennai 600 013.                                                         ……Complainant.     

                                                                          //Vs//

Indus Ind. Bank Limited,

Rep. by its Manager,

No.3, Village Road, 1st Floor,

Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.                                            .......Opposite party. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                              :   M/s.R.Thiviyadharan, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite party                          :   Mr.K.Moorthy, Advocate.

 

This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.92/2019 and transferred to this commission by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as CC.No.99/2022 and this complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 18.04.2023 in the presence of Mr.K.Moorthy counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. P. MURUGAN, MEMBER- II

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party for seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages due to the deficiency in service along with cost of the proceedings.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

The complainant has approached the opposite party for obtaining a loan to buy a two wheeler which was duly sanctioned vide agreement dated 30.11.2016.  The loan amount is Rs.64,800/- which is repayable in 24 equated monthly installment within a period from 30.11.2016 to 21.09.2018 with Rs.2700/- as equated monthly installment with the condition that the payment should be made on 21st day of every calendar month.  It is alleged that although the complainant has prompt in repayment of EMI, a demand of Rs.8671.02/- was claimed by the opposite party vide notice dated 11.02.2019.  This demand is not a due at all as per complainant, as the complainant has paid all the EMI and received a receipt to that effect from the opposite party.  Therefore the complainant has issued a legal notice dated 28.02.2019 for which a reply dated 06.03.2019 was given by the opposite party as the issue raised by complainant is baseless and false allegations levelled.  The prayer of the complainant is that he is not in due of any payment to the opposite party and because of the demand by opposite party the complainant has been put in great hardship and mental agony and demanded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-

Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-

In their version of defence, the opposite party has clearly pointed out that the whole transaction of lending loan and repayment of loan and the clause on delay in repayment by penal interest apart from interest for regular installment and service charges if any was clearly indicated in the loan agreement and the complainant has accepted all the terms and conditions of the agreement and accepted and signed the agreement.  They put forth that the complainant has lapsed in the repayment of monthly installments on 6 ECS payment for the month of December 2016, May 2017, August 2017, February 2018, July 2018 and September 2018.  As such the whole transactions are based on loan agreement, the delay in repayment attracted interest and a demand of Rs.6344/- was raised which was duly paid by the complainant.  The additional demand of interest charges amounting to Rs.2427/- was pending and the complainant is liable to pay the demand of additional interest charges levied for the lapsed installments.  The opposite party has also initiated mediation for settlement of issue and the complainant has paid Rs.1500/- towards charges on 09.05.2019 and to resolve the issued amicably and on the part of their side, the opposite party also waived an amount of Rs.927/- towards charges levied.  Based on this mediation the opposite party has closed the loan account only and issued the ORC and NOC to the complainant on 24.05.2019.  Here the opposite party clearly states that although the complainant has paid the demand of Rs.6344/- towards interest, the penal interest of Rs.2427/- is still due which is agreed as per the clause laid in the agreement dated 30.12.2016. While so happened in this loan availment, repayment of loan in lapsed way, the complainant has filed such complaint alleging that undue demand for payment is raised by the opposite party.  They requested to dismiss the complaint as it does not hold goods on the basis of agreement signed by complainant.

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A8. On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and submitted document Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 was marked on their side. 

 

 

Points for consideration:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged by the complainant?

If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1& 2:-

The complainant has approached the opposite party for the purpose of obtaining a loan and entered into an agreement dated 30.01.2016 vide reference TCC 2230 H for Rs.64,800/- and agreed to repay the loan in 24 equated monthly installments at Rs.2700/- per month from 30.11.2016 to 21.09.2018.  This loan has been taken by the complainant to buy a vehicle under loan cum hypothecation agreement.  It is laid out in that the agreement that the EMI should be paid on 21st of every calendar month without delay or default, failing which the complainant is liable to the additional interest charges @ 36% per annum until the amount realization there of and other charges as per agreement which is accepted and agreed by the complainant.

Now the point for filing this complaint by the complainant is that the opposite party had raised demand of Rs.8671.02/- which is not a due at all since he has paid all the dues in total and received receipt for settlement of loan.  This demand is based on a notice dated 11.02.2019 by the opposite party alleges the complainant. Therefore the complainant has sent a legal notice dated 28.02.2019 refuting the claim and filed complaint before this commission for compensation for the wrong claim by the opposite party towards damages and cost of litigation.

In their defence, the opposite party has clearly pointed out that the whole transaction is based on the loan agreement and the complainant has lapsed in the repayment of monthly installments on six payment for the month of December 2016, May 2017, August 2017, February 2018, July 2018 and September 2018.  The demand of Rs.6344/- towards interest was also paid by the complainant and the additional interest charges of Rs.2427/- was pending.  Hence the complainant is liable to pay the additional interest charges of Rs.2427/- for the late payment of aforesaid six monthly installments.  The issue of mediation between both the parties was also initiated.  Accordingly, the complainant has paid Rs.1500/- on 09.05.2019 to resolve the issue amicably and on the part of opposite party an amount of Rs.927/-was also waived as per records.  Based on this mediation the opposite party has closed the loan account only and issued the ORC and NOC to the complainant on 24.05.2019.  The interest of Rs.6344/- also paid by the complainant but the penal interest of Rs.2427/- is due which is agreed as per agreement dated 30.01.2016. While so happened, the complainant has filed such complaint alleging that undue payment demand is made by the opposite party.

Perusing the records and hearing the sides, it is proved that the demand made by the opposite party is for additional interest for the overdue installments lapsed by the complainant which is well within the clause of the agreement which has been signed by the complainant and agreed on 30.01.2016.  Therefore the complainant’s case does not have a stand and liable to get dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  no order as to cost.  

Dictated by the Member II to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the Member II and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 28th day of April 2023.

 

   Sd/-                                                   Sd/-                                                          Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                    MEMBER – I                                           PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 12.01.2019 Normal Receipt. Xerox

Ex.A2 11.02.2019 Copy of notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Xerox

Ex.A3 28.02.2019 Copy of legal notice. Xerox

Ex.A4 06.03.2019 Copy of reply notice. Xerox

Ex.A5 ............. Copy of Driving Licence. Xerox

Ex.A6 ............. Existing RC Book. Xerox

Ex.A7 ............ New RC Book (Smart Card) Xerox

Ex.A8 08.05.2019 Statement of account given by the opposite party. Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the  opposite party:-

 

Ex.B1 30.11.2016 Loan agreement. Xerox

Ex.B2 12.10.2022 Statement of Account. Xerox

 

 

   Sd/-                                                           Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                             MEMBER I                                    PRESIDENT