STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Nilakshi Joseph D/o Dr. Joseph, r/o H.No.49, Shivalik Vihar, Nayagaon, Tehsil Kharar, Distt. Mohali.

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

1]      Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd., through its Manager, SCO 153-155, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

2]      Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Company, 4th Floor, Vinay Bhavya Complex, 159-A, CST Road, Kalina, Santacruz East, Mumbai.

              ....Respondents/Opposite parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:     JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Sunil K. Dixit, Adv. for the appellant

                   Sh. Varun Chawla, Adv. for respondent No.1

                   Respondent No.2 exparte

PER  NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                    This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.9.2011, rendered by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant.

2.                     The facts, in brief, are that the complainant applied for a car loan, which was sanctioned by the opposite party-Bank on 30.6.2009 and she was given cheque dated 20.7.2009 for Rs.97,545/-. She asked for the sanction letter and repayment schedule but the opposite party/bank avoided to supply the same and informed about the EMI as Rs.3,665/- p.m., to be paid on the  1^st of every month, starting from August 2009. It was stated that the complainant was called by the Deputy Manager of Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. Sector 9, Panchkula and was offered Life Insurance Cover for Rs.10.00 lac.  When she refused to accept the offer, the Insurance Executive asked her to simply sign the required documents and told  that the Bank would pay the first annual installment of the premium of Rs.20,000/- to which she agreed and the Life Insurance Cover for Rs.10.00 lac was issued vide policy dated 20.9.2009. It was further stated that on 2.3.2010, when she asked for repayment schedule, she was shocked that the amount of sanctioned loan was Rs.1,22,195/-, to be repaid in 48 installments instead of 36.  She approached the concerned officer of the Bank but to no effect. Ultimately, she served a legal notice dated 14.4.2010 upon the  opposite parties, to correct the EMIs for repayment, as also the loan amount and to disclose all the hidden charges, but to no avail. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed.

3.                     Opposite party No.1 in its reply, stated that the loan amount of Rs.1,22,195/- was sanctioned by it. However, when the complainant desired to get the life insurance policy and directed that the payment of the first premium of Rs.20,000/- be paid from the sanctioned loan, the premium on behalf of the complainant was paid by it to M/s Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual  Life Insurance Co. and the remaining amount of Rs.97,545/- was paid to her. The amount of Rs.20,000/- was disbursed through cheque dated 15.7.2009 which was cleared on 19.8.2009. Hence, the actual loan amount was Rs.1,22,195/- and not Rs.97,545/- and the same was also reflected in the loan agreement signed by the complainant. It was further stated that the foreclosure amount on 11.3.2011 was Rs.88,461.79 and that the loan was foreclosed by the complainant by paying the dues, on her own free will. It was further stated that if the complainant had not taken a loan of Rs.1,22,195/-, she would not have foreclosed the same, by paying all the dues, on her own free will.      It was further stated that copy of the signed agreement and the schedule of payment were supplied to the complainant at the time of disbursement of loan.  It was further stated that as per the statement of account (Annexure R-2), on 19.2.2011, the complainant had outstanding dues of Rs.85,614.79 and Rs.88,461.79 as on 11.3.2011. The schedule, given in the agreement, showed that the complainant had to pay 48 EMIs of Rs.3,665/- each till 1.7.2013. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong.

4.                     Opposite party No.2 did not appear, despite due service, hence it was proceeded against exparte.

5.                     The contesting parties led evidence, in support of their case. 

6.                     After hearing the ld. Counsel for the contesting parties, and on going through the evidence and record, the ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint.

7.                     Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.                     We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, and respondent No.1, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case carefully. 

9.                     It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that the opposite parties only gave a cheque of Rs.97,545/- against the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.1,22,195/- and deducted an amount of Rs.20,000/-, as premium, without her consent, for issuance of a life insurance policy, whereas the same was to be paid by the opposite party/bank. 

10.                  On the other hand, the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 denied this fact and submitted that the loan amount of Rs.1,22,195/- was sanctioned, and, on the direction of the complainant, an amount of Rs.20,000/- was deducted, and paid to opposite party No.2, as first premium, for the life insurance policy from the sanctioned loan amount, and the remaining amount of Rs.97,545/- was disbursed to the complainant. 

11.                  From the perusal of the proposal form, which is duly signed by the complainant, it is evident that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid, as premium, for the insurance policy obtained by the complainant,  to the Insurance Company i.e. opposite party No.2. This fact has further been proved from the receipt Annexure C-3, which is a copy of the first premium receipt, issued by opposite party No.2 acknowledging the receipt of Rs.20,000/- towards Kotak Smart Advantage plan. Therefore, the contention of the appellant/complainant that the opposite party/bank paid the said premium, without her consent, is falsified. Furthermore, in the absence of any rejoinder to the reply, the contention of respondent No.1/opposite party, goes un-rebutted.  The appellant had not been able to prove that the amount of Rs.20,000/- was deducted, from the sanctioned loan amount, without her consent. 

12.                  As far as the second plea of the appellant, regarding deduction of Rs.4,650/- is concerned, we are of the view that it was for the complainant to prove that opposite party No.1 illegally levied any hidden charges, which she did not. In para No.9 of the impugned order, the District Forum clarified, as to on what account the amount of Rs.4,650/- was charged, by opposite party No.1.  Hence, the second contention of the appellant is also rejected. 

13.                  In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion, that the learned District Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint.

14.                  We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal, and the same is dismissed.  The parties are left to bear their own costs.

                    Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

27.03.2012

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER