Haryana

Karnal

CC/476/2023

Ajay Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jana Small Finance Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Surender Sharma

25 Aug 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No.476 of 2023

                                                          Date of instt.24.08.2023

                                                          Date of Decision:25.08.2023

 

Ajay Sharma son of Shri Satpal Sharma, resident of village Kheri Man Singh, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

Jana Small Finance Bank, Near Hospital Chowk, Mela Ram School Market, Hospital Road, Karnal, through its Manager.

                                                                    …..Opposite party.

 

      Complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

      Shri Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Mrs.Rekha Chaudhary………Member

 

 

Present: Shri Surinder Sharma, counsel for complainant.

                                        

                (Vineet Kaushik Member)

 

ORDER:                   

                Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered.

 

2.                     The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that on 30.09.2022, the complainant was sanctioned and disbursed a loan amount of Rs.15,00,000/- against the collateral security of immovable property and at the time of sanction of loan, the OP took the relevant papers from the complainant in order to secure the non-housing loan and A/c No.32039430000623 was opened in the name of complainant and the said loan amount was to be returned in equal monthly installments of Rs.21,510/-. The date of maturity was fixed as 03.10.2037 and current rate of interest was settled @ 15% per annum. The complainant was regularly paying the installments without any default. On 02.05.2023, the complainant contacted the OP and requested to accept the balance loan amount and to render the rendition of account but the OP has refused to give the rendition of accounts and stated that if the complainant wanted to deposit balance amount at one time, before maturity, then the OP will charge heavy penalty in the form of foreclosure charges. Complainant is ready to deposit the entire loan amount at one time but the OP has refused to accept the same and the OP wants to extract more money from the complainant in the form of penalty.  At the time of advancement of loan, it was settled that the rate of interest shall be charged @ 12% per annum and shall be calculated and charged on the basis of reducing rate of interest but the OP has not followed the conditions and has been charging the rate of interest at flat rate. The OP has been charging exaggerated and unconscionable rate of interest which is illegal act on the part of OP. Finding no other alternative, the complainant has filed the present complaint.

3.             In the present complaint, the complainant has sought the following relief:-

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the present complaint may kindly be allowed and the opposite party may kindly be directed to accept the balance loan amount without any foreclosure charges at one time and to charge interest @12% per annum and also to adjust the illegal penalities/charges already recovered from the complainant and also to direct the OP to redeem the mortgaged property of the complainant and also to return the document/title deeds which were taken at the time of advancement of loan alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental pain and agony and litigation charges of Rs.21,000/- in the interest of justice.

Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled may kindly be also awarded.”  

4.             The above claimed relief cannot be granted in summary trial and without leading detailed examination/ cross examination of the witnesses. Hence, the best platform to decide the matter in dispute is the Civil Court where elaborate and detailed testimony can be produced by the parties and in order to prove the issues involved in the present complaint, Civil Court can cross examined the same. In this regard, we are placed reliance upon the observations made in case titled as Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007 (4) CPJ Page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble National Commission that complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court. Further, in case titled as M/s The Bills through its Proprietor Versus PNB reported in 1998 (1) CPC page 150, decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh it has been held that complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.

5.             Hence, in view the law laid down in the above said authorities and in view of the facts and circumstances of the complaint, the present complaint is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed on the point of admissibility. However, the complainant will be at liberty to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action, before the competent court of law, if so desired. Party concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

 

Announced
Dated: 25.08.2023

  President,       

District Consumer Disputes                          

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

   (Vineet Kaushik)        Rekha Chaudhary

          Member                  Member