DATE OF FILING :25/11/16
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 27th day of February 2018
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO. 334/2016
Between
Complainant : Siby Joseph, S/o Joseph,
Kunnumpurathu House,
Kanjikuzhy P.O.,
Kanjikkuzhy, Idukki District.
(By Adv: Gem Korason)
And
Opposite Party : IndusInd Bank,
Adimaly Branch,
Adimaly P.O., Idukki District,
Represented by its Manager.
O R D E R
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is that,
The complainant availed a vehicle loan from opposite party for purchasing a Tipper Lorry on 30/08/12. The loan amount was 8 Lakhs rupees and as per the loan agreement the loan amount is to be repaid with 7.92% interest in 48 instalments starting from 01/10/12 @ Rs.24655/- per month. As per the agreement the total loan amount including interest is to be repaid was Rs.11,88,784/-. At the time of granting loan opposite party insisted the complainant to sign on certain printed papers and also obtain some blank signed cheque from him.
The complainant further contended that, even though he was regular in repayment, the opposite party used to send the cheques for collection with delay and they used to charge huge amount as penal interest during the delayed payment. The complainant used to make payment on each and every month and further direct payment was also effected by him as per the demand of the opposite party before the stipulated time. During the time of
(Cont...2)
-2-
remitting the instalments the opposite party demanded more money than the instalment amount and complainant had effected payment as they demanded on firm believing that the said amount will be accounted. As per the terms of agreement the loan period ends by August 2016 and on 01/08/16 the complainant approached the opposite party for closing the entire loan. At that time opposite party demanded an amount of Rs.49300/- as the outstanding loan amount and the complainant remitted the same. Actually as per the loan agreement complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.11,88,784/-. In addition to it opposite party realized an amount of Rs.76,950/- from the complainant illegally.
At the time of closing the loan account on 01/08/16, opposite party promised that NOC and loan termination letter will be issued within one month. When he approached the opposite party for the document after that period, opposite party's manager said that it will take further one month more, since it is kept with their head office. After one month the complainant approached them again, and at that time opposite party stated that Rs.42,000/- being the loan overdue charges and then only they can return the documents. Complainant further averred that he is not liable to pay any amount as demanded by the opposite party and the demand of more money by the opposite party is illegal and against the banking principles and regulations and it is gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Against this the complainant filed this complaint, seeking relief to direct the opposite party to return the documents such as NOC and loan termination letter of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL/06/F/7584 and also direct them to repay an amount of Rs.76,950/- which they grabbed from the complainant and also direct them to pay cost and compensation.
Upon notice opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed reply version. In their version opposite party contended that before sanctioning the loan opposite party bank has clearly explained the terms and conditions of the loan agreement including the default clauses. Along with the loan amount opposite party sanctioned Rs.30,000/- for insurance charges. Understanding the terms of the loan agreement complainant had executed it. Opposite party further contended that, initially complainant was regular in repayment and remitted the instalments through cheques. The cheques issued by the complainant were out station cheques and due to that delay was occurred in
(Cont...3)
-3-
encashing it, and there by caused to occur additional interest in the loan. More over the cheques dated 27/12/12 and 01/01/14 were dishonoured due to insufficient funds and bounce charges was also occurred in the loan account. Being the borrower, the complainant is bound to ensure the payment of monthly instalments without default and delay, and the complainant is liable to pay additional interest for delayed payments. Opposite party further admitted the payment of Rs.49,300/- on 01/08/16 but denied the allegation that they illegally collected an excess amount of Rs.76,950/- from the complainant and the complainant is liable to pay additional interest for delayed or default payment in addition to the agreement. Opposite party further contended that as on 06/03/17 an amount of Rs.57,414 is still outstanding in the loan account. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get the NOC for loan termination. The opposite party bank has provided the detailed statement of account to the complainant and also explained all details of the pending amount, decided and acting in according to the stipulation of contract entered with the complainant. By ignoring this, the complainant raising false and frivolous contentions with ulterior motive. Hence there is no deficiency in service from their part and the subject matter of vehicle is based upon a contract, if one of the party violated the terms of contact, he is not enabled to any claim neither under this Act nor under any other Act. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the opposite party bank.
Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of documents. Complainant produced 4 documents which were marked as Ext.P1 to Ext.P4. Ext.P1 is the copy of RC book, Ext.P2 is the statement of account, Ext.P3 is the borrower details and instalment details, Ext.P4 is the contract status details. From the defence side no oral or documentary evidence is adduced.
Heard both sides,
The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
(Cont...4)
-4-
The Points:- We have carefully considered the matter and perused the records of the case. It is an admitted fact that the loan sanctioned to the complainant was Rs.8,80,000/- and the duration is 48 instalments starting from 01/10/12. For the period interest was calculated as Rs.24655/- and the total loan amount to be repaid as calculated as Rs.11,88784/-. It is also admitted that complainant paid the instalments regularly, but two cheques where he was issued for payment was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Later on he paid the instalment with defaulted interest. The version of the opposite party in this case is that, the complainant remitted the instalment through outstation cheque and due to this huge delay in honouring the cheque was caused and thereby the opposite party charged penal interest in each delayed receipts. Opposite party further contended that opposite party's bank is a company registered under the Companies Act, and governed by the banking Regulation Act, and in this case opposite party acted in accordance with the stipulation of the contract entered between the complainant. Even though opposite party specifically stated that they acted in accordance with the terms of the loan agreement, no agreement is produced before the Forum to strengthen their version. In the face of the Ext. P2, Ext.P3 and Ext.P4, opposite party stated the interest of the loan is charging 7.92% but no figure of additional or penal interest is stated. More over they has not specifically stated in their version that how many times the delayed payment was occurred and where they presented the cheque and how many days delay was caused in each payment. More over in nowhere opposite party stated that how many instalments are pending and how they arrived such a huge amount by way of penalty. Without clarifying the above doubts with clear and cogent evidence, the Forum is not in a position to swallow the averments in the reply version. In their version opposite party specifically admitted that on 01/08/16 complainant remitted an amount of Rs.49,300/-. But no whisper about whether any instalment is pending on that date. It means the complainant remitted all instalment without any delay till the end. No evidence is produced by the opposite party to prove contrary. At the same time on going through the complaint averments, Forum finds that the complainant remitted an amount of Rs.49,300/- on 01/08/16 after convincing the matter of penal interest. Hence the Forum is of a considered view that the allegation of illegal grabbing cannot be sustainable.
(Cont...5)
-5-
On the basis of above discussion, the Forum is of the opinion that the additional demanded of 42000/- as loan dues for issuing NOC in this matter is a deficiency and unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party and the complainant is succeed in proving his case. Hence complaint allowed in part opposite party directed to close the above discussed vehicle loan and issue NOC to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as litigation cost to the complainant for the delay caused in issuing the NOC of the vehicle in time.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of February, 2018.
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K. (MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
Nil
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - The copy of RC book
Ext.P2 - The statement of account
Ext.P3 - The borrower details and instalment details
Ext.P4 - The contract status details.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
Forwarded by Order,
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
