Date of Filing: 25.06.2014
Date of Order: 29.10.2018
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.Vijender, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER.
Monday, the 29th day of October, 2018
C.C.No.421 /2014
Between
Sudheer Agarwal,
S/o. Late Ramkumar Agarwal,
Age : 52 years, Occ: Self Employed,
R/o. H.No.6-3-680/82/401,
Siri Residency, Somajiguda,
Hyderabad – 500082. ……Complainant
And
- M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,
# 6-3-1109/1, 2nd Floor, Navbharath Chambers,
Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda,
Hyderabad – 500082.
Rep. by it’s Branch Manager
- M/s. Barclays Bank PLC
# 601/603, Ceejay House,
Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Road,
Worli, Mumbai -400018.
Rep. by it’s authorized Officer.
- M/s. Phoenix ARC Pvt., Ltd.,
7th Floor, Dani Corporate Park,
158, C.S.T. Road,
Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400098
Rep. by Authorized Officer. ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainant : Sri Srinivas Gopisetty & Johnson Vincent
Counsel for the Opposite Parties : Sri B.Yogendra Prasad, O.P.No.1 & 3
: Sri R.Ravi Kumar, O.P.No.2
O R D E R
(By Sri. Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint is preferred under Section 11 & 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties. His complaint is that, he is running a Proprietary concern under the name and style of M/s. Navajyothi Steels, Secunderabad. Having seen his business the Opposite Party No.2 offered business loan of Rs.15,00,000/- repayable with interest @ 18% p.a., on equated monthly installments of Rs.55,746/- with a tenure of 36 months. He accepted offer made by the Opposite Party No.2 availed the loan but requested to increase EMIs to 72 months at Rs.20,833/- instead of 36 months duration of Rs.55,746/- EMIs.
1. After availing the loan he used to repay the same by EMI of Rs.55,746/- till June-2009 thereafter as he failed to recover the amounts from this customers who purchased the material from him on retail basis. He could pay the installment to Opposite Party No.2. The efforts made by him with his customers to re pay the amount due to him were in vain, and his customers have absconded.
2. The complainant did not avail any loan from Opposite Party Nos.1 & 3 and did not executed any document in their favour but they have started harassing him by way of demanding to pay the amounts and threatened to involve him in Civil and Criminal cases for recovery the amount. He delivered blank Cheques with signatures to Opposite Party No.2 while obtaining the loan as a security Opposite Party Nos.1 & 3 has started sending antisocial elements to his residence and started threatening that, they have obtained orders from the court to send him to the Civil prison if he fails to pay the amount. Now the complainant is unable to pay the amount due to Opposite Party No.2 unless he recovered the amount payable to him by his customers who purchased material from him on credit.
3. The complainant has no other source of income expect debts to recover from his customers. He is ready to pay outstanding loan to Opposite Party No.2 by way of EMI of Rs.20,833/- in a period of 72 months but he is not liable to pay any amount to Opposite Party Nos.1 & 3. Since Opposite Party Nos.1 & 3 are threatening him to initiate criminal and civil proceedings for sending him to jail, he constrained to file the present complaint.
4. The Opposite Party Nos.1 & 3 have filed a common written version whereas, Opposite Party No.2 filed a separate one. The version of Opposite Party No.2 is that, the complainant availed business loan of Rs.15,00,000/- for improvement of his business and executed a demand pro-note on 26.07.2007 and undertook to pay the principal amount with interest @ 19.5% with monthly rests and the loan was repayable in 36 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.55,364/-.
5. The complainant after availing the loan paid monthly installments till 01.04.2009 thereafter he defaulted. During the course of business activity Opposite Party No.1 agreed and take over the liability along with security and Opposite Party No.2 agreed to a deed on assignment was executed on 30.03.2011 assigning the debt and security of the complainant infavour of Opposite Party No.1. In the light of it the loan of the complainant is no longer existing in the books of Opposite Party No.2. Hence, it is not a necessary party for the present complaint.
6. On account of execution of deed of assignment the Opposite Party No.1 stepped into the shoes of Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.3 is the duly authorized collection Agent of Opposite Party No.1 as such, the complainant cannot maintain present complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. The stand of Opposite Party Nos.1 & 3 is that, the original loan account of complainant with Opposite Party No.2 was transferred by registered assignment deed as a result all the legal rights of the complainant’s loan account was transferred to Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 and they have every right to recover the loan amount due as per law. Asking the complainant to repay the loan does not amounts to harassment or deficiency in service. The complainant ought to have approached Opposite Party Nos.1 & 3 for negotiations for repayment of the loan. The complainant has admitted and accepting the liability to repay the loan and at the same time has approached this Forum to prevent the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 3 from exercising their legal right of recovery. The reliefs sought by the complainant do not come under the purview of this Forum, hence, is liable to be dismissed.
8. In the enquiry proceedings the complainant has got filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the substance of the complaint averments. He also got exhibited three (3) documents. Similarly for Opposite Party Nos.1 & 3 the evidence affidavit of one Mr. Anilkumar stated to be an Associate Manager of Opposite Party No.1 is filed and on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 there is no affidavit.
9. On hearing the arguments and considering the material averment placed on record by the parties the following points have emerged for consideration.
- Whether the complainant could make out a case of either deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for ?
- To what relief ?
- Point No.1: It is burnout from the record that, the complainant has availed a business loan of Rs.15,00,000/- from Opposite Party No.2 Bank and executed necessary documents. As per the terms of loan agreement the loan amount was repayable in 36 monthly equated installments of Rs.55,746/- each and paid the EMIs till 01.04.2009 then defaulted. Thereafter in the course of business the Opposite Party No.1 Bank has purchased loan accounts from Opposite Party No.2 Bank as a part of port polio investment. In that process the complainant’s business loan account was assigned by Opposite Party No.2 Bank stepped into the shoes of Opposite Party No.2 and has got rights to recover the outstanding amount due from the complaint. The Opposite Party No.3 stated to be agent of Opposite Party No.1.
- The case of the complainant is, in the course of business transactions the persons who have purchased goods from him on credit didn’t pay as a result he could not pay installments to Opposite Party No.2 Bank and ultimately he sustained loss. It appears that after assignment of complainant’s loan account Opposite Party No.1 started the process of recovering the loan hence it’s might have pressed the complainant to pay the outstanding amount. As rightly pointed out by Opposite Party Nos.1 & 3 that asking to repay the outstanding amount does not amounts to deficiency of service and informing the complainant that, they will initiate Civil and Criminal proceedings for recovery the amount does not amounts to harassment or unfair trade practice. If, after sanction of the loan by Opposite Party No.2 Bank it did not release or disperses the amount due under the loan transaction will amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Even of the entire version of complainant that, he sustained loss in the business and not able to pay amount by way of EMIs at Rs.55,746 is true, the remedy for him to approach the civil court with insolvency proceedings. The reliefs prayed for by the complainant are that, to stop the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 3 from harassing him and his family members mentally and physically but what sought of harassment was made is not explained. Even, according to the complaint averments he was informed by Opposite Party Nos.1 & 3 that they will initiate to be similar proceedings as per law is true then also it does not amounts to either harassment or unfair trade practice. The other reliefs sought by the complainant is to allow him to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.9,98,280/- by way of 72 EMIs of Rs.13,865/-. The said relief is not within the purview of this Forum, neither on facts nor on law. Thus complaint cannot maintain the present complaint before this Forum. Accordingly, the point is answered against the complainant.
- Point No.II: The findings of this Forum to the Point No.1 are that, the complainant has failed to make out a case of either deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Hence, he is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for.
- Point No.III: In the result the complaint is dismissed. No orders as to costs.
Typed by Typist, corrected and pronounced by us on this the 29th day of October, 2018.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
PW1 DW1
Sudheer Agarwal Mr. Anilkumar
Associate Manager of
Opposite Party No.1
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Exhibit: A-1 is copy of Statement of Account issued by Opposite Party No.2.
Exhibit: A-2 is copy of Notice issued by Opposite Party No.3.
Exhibit: A-3 is copy of Statement of Account issued by Opposite Party No.2.
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite parties :
Nil.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Kps
