Haryana

Karnal

CC/81/2017

Baljeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil Kanwar

01 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                      Complaint No.81 of 2017

                                                      Date of instt. 23.02.2017

                                                      Date of decision 1.10.2018

 

Baljeet Singh son of Shri Rashpal Singh, resident of house no.4297, Nissing Dera near new Anaj Mandi, Nissing, District Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Branch Sector-12 Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                        …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

     Sh. Vineet Kaushik………Member

               

 

 Present   Shri Suraj Kanwar Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Gurmeet Singh Advocate for OP.

                  

ORDER:   

 

                   (JASWANT SINGH, PRESIDENT)                

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant obtained a loan from opposite party for Rs.4,31,359/- for purchasing tractor and other agricultural equipments. The repayment of the schedule of said loan was settled in total 20 quarterly installments of Rs.34,050/-each and duration of the loan was from 10^th July 2014 to 10^th April 2019. At the time of advancing of loan, it had been settled between the complainant and the OP, if complainant would deposit excess amount from installment in lump-sum manner earlier to installment schedule, then the OP would not charge interest upon such amount and the interest would be calculated on the outstanding amount at that particular time. It is further alleged that the installment of the loan started on 10^th July 2014 and the complainant had made a payment of Rs.50,000/- on 18^th July 2014 vide receipt no.11367200503 and Rs.3,00,000/- was paid on 13.09.2014 before starting of second installment which was to be due on 10^th October, 2014. The complainant had paid Rs.3,50,000/- in first installment. It is settled between them if excess amount is paid then the OP will charge interest on the remaining balance amount and the complainant has not give any oral or written consent to adjust the excess amount in installments. In February, 2017 complainant notice through his statement of account that the OP has made installment of excess amount that is Rs.3,15,000/- and deducted Rs.34,050/- from the excess amount on each date of installment and has charged excess interest from the complainant by deducting similar installment amount of Rs.34,050/-. Then complainant approached the OP and requested not to charge excess interest and to adjust the amount already charged illegally by the OP in the loan account of the complainant and requested to issue the statement of account of loan account in fair manner, but OP did not give any satisfactory reply. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealments of true and material facts.

                On merits, it is pleaded that the vehicle in question was financed by the OP vide agreement no.2601556 dated 30.04.2014 for an amount of Rs.4,31,359/- for a period of 60 months of quarterly installment of Rs.34,050/-. It is further pleaded that the loan was advanced to the complainant as per loan agreement dated 30.04.2014 and the terms and conditions of the agreement are binding on the complainant and the OP. It is further pleaded that some amounts have been deposited by the complainant with the bank and the receipts of the same have been issued by the bank. It is denied that the complainant has paid the installments as per the schedule of payment of the agreement. It is also denied that the interest will not be charged on the excess amount. The amount of interest was strictly calculated as per terms and conditions of the agreement and the schedule of payment. The complainant did not stick to the schedule of payment of the agreement and defaulted in making payment as such a foreclosure notice was served upon the complainant on 13.02.2017 to deposit an amount of Rs.2,86,879/- which was outstanding against the complainant as and on 13.2.2017 but the complainant has failed to pay the same and the amount of Rs.3,12,746/- as and on 18.9.2017 has become due towards the complainant. It is further pleaded that the OP has not charged any illegal amount from the complainant and amount outstanding against the complainant as per terms and conditions of the agreement. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 1.12.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Ashish Sharma Manager Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.O1 and Ex.O2 and closed the evidence on 11.06.2018.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is not disputed that complainant had obtained a loan of Rs.4,31,359/- from OP and an agreement dated 30.4.2014 executed between the parties, copy of which is Ex.O1. It is also not disputed that complainant had paid Rs.50,000/- on 18.07.2014 and Rs.3,00,000/- on 13.09.2014 before starting of second installment which was due on 10.10.2014.

 7.             Learned counsel for the complainant argued that OP was adamant to charge Rs.2,86,879/- which was not outstanding against the complainant as complainant has already paid Rs.3,50,000/- and only balance was Rs.81,357/-. The learned counsel for complainant further argued that the OP has failed to adjust the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the outstanding amount which was paid on or before 13 September, 2014.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP argued that the complainant did not stick to the schedule of payment of the agreement and defaulted in making payment as such a foreclosure notice was served upon the complainant on 13.02.2017 to deposit an amount of Rs.2,86,879/- which was outstanding against the complainant on 13.2.2017 but the complainant has failed to pay the same and on 18.9.2017 the amount of Rs.3,12,746/- was due towards the complainant. He further argued that terms and conditions of the loan agreement dated 30.4.2014 were binding upon the complainant and the OP. He further prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             As stated above, it is admitted case of the OP that the amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited by the complainant on 19.07.2014 and Rs.3,00,000/-  on 13.09.2014 but the OP did not adjust the same in the loan account of the complainant. Inspite of the deposit of the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- by the complainant, the complainant was burdened by the OP with the interest/penal interest on the said amount without any fault on his part. Whereas the said amount of Rs3,50,000/- should have been deducted from the loan account of the complainant but the OP had not done so. Inspite of the deposit of said amount by the complainant, the OP is adamant to charge interest on the said amount. Moreover, the terms and conditions of such agreements are not known by everyone especially in case of farmers in India, who are treated to be layman. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OP has committed an act of unfair trade practice and are deficient in providing services to the complainant. 

10.            Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to adjust the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the loan account of the complainant from the date of deposit of said amount and thereafter calculate  the remaining amount and the complainant is liable to pay the remaining amount of loan as agreed by the parties. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:

Dated 01.10.2018                         

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Vineet Kaushik)     

                        Member