By Smt. Beena. M, Member:-
This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. Brief facts of the case are given below:
The Complainant availed loan of Rs.1,60,000/- from the Opposite Party to meet the shortage of fund in purchase of second-hand vehicle No. KL -41-F-3212 Alto K 10. The Opposite Party had told that they would arrange loan from Starla Finance, but they arranged loan from Settu named Vishal Kumar. The repayment of loan fell into arrears from 5 months due to financial difficulties. When the Complainant approached the Opposite Party, after decided to pay the entire loan amount by selling the car, they demanded to pay Rs.1,78,000/- in addition to the amount of Rs.68,800/- already paid by the Complainant. The loan was taken in November 2021, i.e. well over 15 months. The Opposite Party levied interest @ 19 % instead of 12% as agreed. The collecting 19% interest is clear violation of Reserve Bank Guidelines. Hence, this complaint.
3. The Opposite Party entered appearance and filed version. In the version the Opposite Party denied all the allegations made against them by the Complainant, but they admitted the loan availed by the Complainant from the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party stated that they never told that they would arrange the loan from Starla Finance. The Complainant, who is the owner of Alto car, came to the Opposite Party Institution and asked for the vehicle loan, checked the running condition of the vehicle in presence of Complainant, discussed the conditions and fixed rate of interest at 18% and in case of failure, 2% penalty interest should be paid and signed the agreement and related documents and gave the loan of Rs.1,60,000/-. The Complainant signed the agreement and agreed to abide the terms of the agreement, but the Complainant breached the conditions and defaulted in repayment after 06.09.2022. Then on sending the notices, the Complainant agreed in writing to clear the loan amount. Then the Complainant and the guarantors came to the office of the Opposite Party several times and verified the account, seeing that the amount to be paid up to 31.03.2023 was Rs.1,31,508/- and transactions settled for Rs.1,30,000/-. On 31.01.2023, the Complainant issued Sulthan Bathery Co-Operative Urban Bank’s cheque No.044575 dated 15.03.2023 for Rs.80,000/- in the name of agent of Opposite Party. It is agreed that the balance amount would be paid on or before 31.03.2023. According to the Opposite Party, the complaint was filed by the Complainant to stop encashment of cheque with an intention to defraud the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party denied the statement that they have charged interest unfairly. Therefore, the Opposite Party prayed to dismiss the Complaint.
4. It is observed that in spite of several chances given to the Complainant to adduce evidence, he failed to lead evidence on his behalf and therefore, the case is posted for the evidence of Opposite Party. The Opposite Party filed proof affidavit and examined as OPW1 and document produced was marked as Ext.B1. After the examination of the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed petition to reopen the evidence, which is dismissed.
5. The points for consideration are as follows:
1) Whether there was any deficiency in service committed by the
Opposite Party?
2) If so, what costs and reliefs?
6. The Complainant raised the contention that the Opposite Party had charged excess interest of 19% than the agreed rate of 12% p.a. The Complainant failed to produce the document to show that there was agreement for the interest. In the complaint the Complainant stated that collecting the interest at the rate of 19% which is clear violation of Reserve Bank Guidelines. But the Complainant did not produce the guideline in order to assist the Commission in deciding the issue. Since the entire allegation raised in the complaint is totally denied by the Opposite Party, a mere filing of complaint is not enough to overcome the contentions of the Opposite Party. Here the Complainant has not produced any document to show that the interest received from him is excess. Therefore, from the evidence adduced by the Opposite Party did not appear that Opposite Party have collected any excess amount. Ongoing through the evidence and account statement we cannot find any deficiency in service committed by the Opposite Party towards the Complainant.
In the result, Complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 20th day of June 2024.
Date of Filing:-08.02.2023.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
Nil.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
OPW1. Jamal. C. Driver.
Exhibits for the Complainant:-
Nil
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-
B1. Account Statements of Loan Account. Dt:31.01.2023.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
Kv/-
