Haryana

StateCommission

A/167/2016

INDUSIND BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHAVIR - Opp.Party(s)

ASHWANI TALWAR

11 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                        First Appeal No.167 of 2016

Date of Institution: 24.02.2016                                                              Date of Decision: 11.01.2017

 

1.      IndusInd Bank Limited through Branch Manager,Shiva  Complex, Narnaul District Mahendergarh.

2.      Anil Kumar Yadav, Branch Manager, IndusInd Bank Limited, Shiva Complex, Narnaul District Mahendergarh.

3.      IndusInd Bank Limited through consumer Head (consumer Finance Division), Bhageria House 43 Community Center, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110065.

          Appellants No.1,3 and 4 through Sh.Amit Kumar, Deputy Manager Legal and GPA holder of IndusInd Bank Limited Delhi.

…..Appellants

Versus

Mahavir S/o Sh.Mool Chand, R/o Village Karira, Post Office Kotia, Tehsil & District Mahendergarh (Haryana).

                                      …..Respondent

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

         

Present:     Shri Aftab Singh proxy counsel for Mr.Ashwani Talwar,   Advocate counsel for appellants.

                             Shri C.H.Yadav, Advocate counsel for the respondent.  

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

As per complainant he purchased a vehicle valuing Rs. 4,10,000/-.  For that purpose he deposited Rs.1,10,000/- in cash and obtained loan from opposite parties (O.Ps.) for the remaining amount. They received Rs.33750/- on that very day i.e. 17.04.2009.  He paid Rs.13736/- in cash in connection of cover note dated 17.04.2009, pertaining to insurance. He deposited Rs.2,97,000/- upto 28.02.2011. As per repayment schedule provided to him he was to pay 29 installments out of which 20 installment were of Rs.13,500/- each, 8 installments of Rs.12,400/- each and last installment of Rs.11675/-.  In this way liability towards him was shown as Rs.3,80,875/- which was altogether wrong.  In repayment schedule amount of Rs.three lacs was shown whereas Rs.33750/- were received by them on 17.04.2009, as mentioned in receipt No.RHN 27175.  Out of that amount Rs.30,250/- were pertaining  to  margin money and Rs.3500/- for GPA. Even after deduction of amount of GPA he paid Rs.2,69,750/- and Rs. Three lacs were wrongly shown. Rs.22,000/- were wrongly debited from his account whereas he himself got the insurance done.  As per calculation he was liable to pay Rs.13,500/-.

2.      O.ps. filed reply controverting his averments alleging that District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (In short “District Forum”) at Narnaul was not having territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint because neither they were having any office at Narnaul nor any cause of action accrued at that place. There was no relationship of consumer and service provider in between them. Complaint was not maintainable and matter was liable to be referred to arbitrator. He had already filed a complaint before Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and finance Ministry which were still pending. On merits it was alleged that as per agreement he was liable to pay the amount as detailed below:-

“Date of agreement	17.04.2009
Loan amount (in Rs.)	3,00,000/-
Interest charges (in Rs.)	58,875/-
Agreement value (in Rs.)	3,80,875/-
Ist Year Insurance amount (In Rs.)	13,743/-
Contract period (In months)	30
Expiry Date	21.08.2011
Advance EMI-1	13500/-
EMI from 1st month to 20th month (in Rs.)	13500/- each
EMI from 21st month to 28th month (in Rs.)	12400/- each
29th EMI (In Rs.)	11675/-
GPA	3500/-
Documentation charges	1500
Service charges	1500/-“

 

Initially he paid Rs.33,750/- which was adjusted against first EMI.  Insurance cover etc. as detailed below:-

“Ist Year Insurance amount (in Rs.)	13,743/-
Advance EMI-1	13500/-
GPA	3500/-
Documentation charges	1500/-
Service charges	1500/-
Total	33750/-“

 

Due to this reason he was to repay remaining amount by way of 29 installments. He was well aware that Rs.13743/- were adjusted against the insurance. The said amount was calculated while finalizing remaining payment schedule.  He did not deposit Rs.33750/- toward instalment only. As per  agreement second year and third year insurance cover was to be obtained by them but when complainant obtained insurance cover himself the same was credited in his account. He was still liable to pay Rs.94241/- pertaining to principal amount because the installments were not paid in time. He was not entitled for the relief claimed and the complaint be dismissed.

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Forum,  Narnaul (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 19.01.2016 and directed as under:-

“1.     To adjust Rs.33,750/- towards the repayment of the loan amount of the complainant and calculate interest on the remaining amount after deduction of Rs.33,750/-.

2.      To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges to the complainant.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom O.Ps have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants-O.Ps. vehemently argued that the remaining installments were finalized keeping in view the payment of Rs.33750/- by him on 17.04.2009. Out of that amount 13,743/- were paid for insurance and remaining amount for GPA, documents charges etc as detailed above.  He was to repay the amount by way of 30 installments as mentioned in first schedule attached with loan agreement EX.R-3, but, when he had paid first installment the remaining amount was to be paid as mentioned in second schedule attached with this agreement.  It clearly shows that the amount was not mis-appropriated by them and was correctly credited in his account. He is supposed to repay the amount as per agreement Ex.R-3 and now it cannot be alleged that they (O.Ps.) are charging more amount. Learned District forum has wrongly directed to adjust Rs.33,750/- in his loan account, so impugned order be set aside.

7.      On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that as per first schedule he obtained loan of Rs.Three lacs and margin money was Rs.1,10,000/- The amount of interest was Rs.58,875/-. From the perusal of receipt Ex.C-4 it is clear that Rs.30250/- were adjusted by O.ps. towards margin money and not installment. He paid Rs.13750/- in cash for the purpose of insurance and O.Ps. did not give the credit of the same, So learned District Forum has rightly directed to adjust Rs.33750/- in his loan account.

8.      As far as the question of payment is concerned none of the parties can go out of loan agreement Ex.R-3.  It is bearing signatures of complainant as well as O.Ps.  It is well settled preposition of law that when an agreement is executed in between the parties they are bound by the terms and conditions mentioned therein and cannot get out of the same unless it is proved that fraud was played with anyone. Complainant has miserably failed to show that any fraud was played with him so it cannot be presumed that O.Ps. are charging more amount then agreed in between them.

9.      Now the question comes about adjustment to Rs.33750/-. It is not disputed that complainant paid this amount on 17.04.2009 as mentioned in Ex.C-4. From the perusal of statement of account Ex.R-4 it is clear that out of this amount Rs.13500/- are adjusted against the first installment. But it is nowhere mentioned therein that Rs.13750/- were paid for the insurance. More so, it is specifically alleged by the complainant in Para No.3 of the complaint that he paid Rs.13736/- in cash for obtaining insurance cover. This plea is not specifically denied by the O.Ps. in the reply. It is well settled preposition of law that when a plea is not specifically denied it is to be presumed that other party has admitted the same to be correct. In the present case this presumption is more strong because in Annexure C-3 it is nowhere mentioned that this amount  was adjusted towards the insurance cover. In this case in receipt Ex.C-4, Rs.30250/- are shown towards margin money. As the O.Ps. have adjusted Rs.13750/- towards first installment, so presumption can be drawn that out of that amount first installment was paid by complainant. When there is no explanation about 13750/- it is to be presumed that the same was paid by complainant. So in these circumstances, instead of Rs.33750/-, Rs.13750/- be adjusted in his loan account as directed by District forum.

10.    With this modification, appeal stands disposed of.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.17975/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

January 11th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.