District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.61/2022.
Date of Institution: 31.01.2022.
Date of Order: 09.12.2022.
Sharwan Kumar son of Shri Remal Dass, aged about 72 years R/o House No. ID-69, NIT, Faridabad – 121001, Haryana (AAdhar card No. 6824 4781 6870) M.No. 9899718718.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. Plot No. 7, 2nd floor, Sec-125, Noida, U.P. – 201313 through its Director/Managing Director/Authorized Signatory/person.
Also at:- Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd., Registered Office at: 27, BKC, C-27, G Block, Bandra Kurla complex, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 051 through its Director/Managing Director/Authorized Signatory/person.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Jitender Girotti, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Rajiv Rana, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had taken a loan (vehicle loan) from opposite party on his name for Rs.6,00,000/- in the year 2018. An agreement NO. CF-16444260 was executed between the complainant and opposite party on 31.10.2018. Its tenure was for 36 months and first EMI starts from 05.12.2018. As per agreement EMI’s starts from 05.12.2018 till 05.10.2020 for Rs. 22,020/- and on 05.11.2020 last EMI would be of Rs.19,100/-. As per agreement and payment schedule it was clearly mentioned that the last installment/EMI would be non 05.11.2020 for Rs.19,100/-. The opposite party intentionally, deliberately and to cheat complainant withdraw the 36th EMI on dated 05.11.2021 for Rs.22,364/- and the 37th EMI on 05.12.2021 for Rs.19,444/-. When there was no 37th EMI agreed by the complainant. In this way opposite party had grab the hard earned money of complainant without giving any information regarding this to the complainant the complainant had kept this money in his bank account for his necessary personal needs and for his mediclaim premium but opposite party deliberately withdraw the extra amount from bank account of the complainant. After receiving information of this transaction form his bank complainant approached opposite party through email and inform opposite party about this cheating and demanded refund of extra amount taken with EMI’s and on extra EMI with extra amount i.e. 22,364/- which opposite party had taken from the complainant alongwith interest and penalty/compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for violating the terms of agreement. On reply of e-mail’s opposite party had admitted about the extra EMI’s amount and one extra EMI with extra amount i.e. Rs.22,364/- and gave the lame excuses to grab the money and also told that opposite party would refund some money to the complainant. After that on 19.01.2022 opposite party sent NOC letter to the complainant regarding this loan. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) pay extra amount of EMI’s and one EMI of Rs.22,364/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a..
b) pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had availed finance facilities/finance amount to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- from the answering opposite party vide loan account/agreement NO. CF16444260 for which a loan agreement dated 31.10.2018 was duly signed and executed between the parties to the present complaint. As per the terms and conditions of the said loan agreement, the complaint was to repay the above said loan amount to the answering opposite party, in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs.22,364/- for the above said vehicle, which was to be paid from 05.12.2018 to 05.12.2021. After availing the funds facility the complainant did not adhere to the payment schedule of the loan amount as per loan agreement and delay the payment of installments. In fact the complainant had defaulted in EMI for the month of May, July and August 2020, as a result of which bouncing charges were incurred in the said loan account. As per the statement of account, answering opposite party had recovered bouncing charges on 05.12.2021 which was showing under the head installment NO. 37 and moreover the NOC had already been issued to the complainant. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party – M/s. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. with the prayer to: a) pay extra amount of EMI’s and one EMI of Rs.22,364/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.. b) pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Sharwan Kumar & affidavit of Neelam Bhatia W/o Shri Neeraj Bhatia D/o Shir Sharwan Kumar complainant, Ex.C-1 – letter dated 19.11.2018, Ex.C-2 – Agreement Schedule -1, Ex.C-3 – Agreement Schedule – II, Ex.C-4 – Certified true copy Schedule –III, Ex.C-5 – Repayment Schedule, Ex.C-6 – Bank statement, Ex.C-7 – Statement of account, Ex.C-8 – email, Ex.C-9 to 14 emails, Ex. C-15 – letter dated 19.01.2022,, Ex.C-16 – Certificate u/s 65-B of Evidence Act,
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and
opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Sukrit Kohli, Deputy Legal Manager and authorized representative of M/s. Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited having its office at Ambadeep Building, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi,, Ex. R-1 – Resolution, Ex.R-2 Finance Facility Application Form, sanction letter,, loan agreement, Agreement Schedule-1,, Agreement Schedule-ii, Schedule-III,, Ex.R-3 – Statement of account.
6. As per the statement of the complainant on dated 5.12.2021 vide Ex.C6(colly), the opposite party had deducted Rs. 19,444/- for the cheque bouncing charges and others which is not 37 EMI. Actually, the EMI amount was Rs.24,364/-. As per statement of account vide Ex.C7 there is a proforma of Loan Repayment Pattern which are given as under:
Loan Repayment Pattern
Sr.No. | Installment Pattern | No of installment | EMI amount in Rs. | Total EMI amount in Rs. |
1 | Monthly from 05 Sec.18 to 05 Apr. 20 | 17 | 22,020/- | 373,340/- |
3. | Monthly from 05 Jun.20 to 05.Nov.21 | 18 | 22,364/- | 402,552/- |
2. | Monthly from 05 Dec.21 to 05 Dec.21 | 1 | 19,444/- | 19,444/- |
7. After going through the Loan Repayment pattern to be paid by the complainant, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. An amount of Rs.19,444/- has been charged by the opposite party on the above pattern. No extra amount has been done by the opposite party. Hence no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party has been proved. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 09.12.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
