Haryana

Karnal

CC/93/2023

Virender Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Gurbhajan Singh Virk

04 Dec 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.93 of 2023

                                                        Date of instt 08.02.2023

                                                        Date of Decision: 04.12.2024

 

Virender Pal Singh son of Shri Inderjeet Singh, resident of village Mubarkabad, District Karnal, age 57 years. Aadhar card no.978878820039.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.  Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. SCO 246, First Floor, Sector-12, opposite Mini Secretariat, Karnal-132001, Haryana, India.
2. Director, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 8^th floor, Zone 2, TVH Agnitio Park, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Kandhanchavadi, Chennai-600 096, Tamil Nadu.
3. Registered office: 27 BKC, C27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051, Maharashtra India.
4. Tarsem Lal son of Satpal Singh, resident of Roshanpura Road, village Ismailabad, Tehsil Pehow, District Kurukshetra.

 

…..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

Argued by: Shri G.S. Virk, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Narender Kumar, counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3.

      OP no.4 exparte, vide order dated 12.04.2023.

                   

                     (Sarvjeet Kaur, Member)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant purchased a tractor of Farmtrac 60, bearing registration no.HR-91-9323 and the same was financed from the OPs No.1 to 3 for the sum of Rs.5,35,000/- on 03.08.2018. As per agreement, the complainant was bound to pay the installments of Rs.80,250/- on 10.12.2018, 10.06.2019, 10.12.2019, 10.06.2020, 10.12.2020, 10.06.2021, 10.12.2021, 10.06.2022, 10.12.2022 and 10.06.2023. The complainant gave 10 blank cheques to the OPs, issued by Punjab National Bank Kutail (Karnal). Complainant gave the said blank cheques for payment of the installments to the OPs No.1 to 3. It is further averred that complainant sold the tractor to the OP no.4 and he wanted to pay all the balance amount of the OPs No.1 to 3. The balance amount issued by the OPs is Rs.74,053/- but as per the agreement, the actual balance amount is Rs.66,877/-, which was to be paid by the complainant. OPs also added Rs.3250/- to the balance amount issued by the OPs on 03.08.2018 which was paid by the complainant with interest upto 16.12.2022. The OPs assured the complainant that the amount of Rs.3250/- would be given back to the complainant when the complainant will clear out all this balance with OPs. After the installment was paid through cheque no.29042, the complainant met with the Manager of OPs to pay all the balance amount to the Bank but they demanded Rs.75460/- from the complainant and said that if he would not pay the above amount, they will not issue the NOC to the complainant which is required for the sale of the tractor. Complainant paid Rs.75460/- on 16.12.2022 through RTGS from the account no.0722000100059824, issued by PNB Kutail, Karnal to the OPs. Complainant demanded the blank cheque bearing no.29043, which was given by the complainant to the OPs at the time of finance of tractor but they refused to return the said blank cheque. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay Rs.3250/-, which is unnecessarily imposed on the complainant, to pay Rs.8500/- alongwith 12% interest, which was received by the OPs extra from the complainant, to return the blank cheque no.29043, issued by PNB Kutail, Karnal, to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             On notice OPs No.1 to 3 appeared and filed their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the proposal of complainant was accepted by the bank and the detailed terms and conditions of the loan agreement was made to understand to him. He assented and consented for the terms and conditions of the loan and schedule of charges in the event of default and by accepting the same in true perspective, as such loan agreement no.TEE-6363970 was entered in between the parties on 03.08.2018 and a sum of Rs.5,42,176/- was sanctioned and disbursed to the satisfaction of complainant. The EMIs to repay the financed amount by the complainant was agreed to be start from 10.12.2018 and the last EMI was schedule to be paid on 10.06.2023. The financed so availed was utilized for the purchase of vehicle in question. The complainant has alleged that he has handed over 10 blank cheques with dates for repayment of loan and all the cheques were encashed for paying the installments as agreed under the agreement and same are reflecting in his loan. The complainant asked for pre-closure of loan, since he had sold away tractor in question. At the time of pre-closure an amount of Rs.78264.50/- was pending on 31.12.2022 against his loan account. The complainant asked for waiver, for which a waiver of Rs.2804/- was allowed to him and as such the complainant was asked to deposit Rs.75460/- getting the loan foreclosed, which was paid by him and as of now no amount is pending against his loan account. Further, the loan account was settled before last due installment and as such the complainant was issued NOC, which he received on 16.01.2023 and in token of receiving, he appended his signature. As such, complainant has no cause of action against the OPs. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

3.             OP no.4 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 12.04.2023 of the Commission.    

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of aadhar card Ex.C1, copy of RC Ex.C2, copy of affidavit of OP No.4 Ex.C3, copy of repayment schedule Ex.C4, copy of demand of loan Ex.C5, copies of cheques Ex.C6 to Ex.C15, copy of RTGS Ex.C16, copy of bank passbook Ex.C17, copy of NOC of bank Ex.C18 and closed the evidence on 08.08.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs no.1 to 3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Deepak Kumar Yadav, Legal Manager Ex.OP1/A, copy of loan application Ex.OP1, copy of loan agreement Ex.OP2, copy of No Dues Certificate Ex.OP3, copy of NOC receipt dated 16.01.2023 Ex.OP4, copy of payment deposit receipt Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on 03.06.2024 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the learned for the parties and perused the case file carefully and also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that on 03.08.2018, complainant purchased a tractor and got financed from the OPs for an amount of Rs.5,35,000/-. The EMI of said loan was Rs.80,250/-. The said loan was to be repaid in 10 half yearly installments. Complainant was regularly paying the installments. Complainant sold the tractor to the OP No.4 and requested the OPs to close the loan account on receipt of balance amount. OP demanded of Rs.75,460/- whereas actual balance amount was only Rs.66877/-. On 16.12.2022, under the compelling circumstances, complainant paid the amount of Rs.75460/-. In this way OPs charged the extra amount of Rs.8583/-. OPs have also charged Rs.3250/- without explaining the same and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant availed a loan of Rs.5,35,000/- from the OPs, which was to be repaid in 10 half yearly installments of Rs.80,250/- each. Complainant wants to close the loan account and at the time of closing the loan account an amount of Rs.78264.50/- was pending on 31.12.2022. An amount of Rs.2804/- was waived on the request of complainant and asked to deposit Rs.75460/-. Complainant deposited the said amount without any objection. OPs issued the NOC to the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           Admittedly, on 03.08.2018, complainant has obtained a loan facility to the tune of Rs.5,35,000/- from the OPs No.1 to 3. It is also admitted that as per repayment schedule, the loan was to be repaid in half yearly installments of Rs.80,250/- upto 10.06.2023.

12.             The complainant has got financed the vehicle in question from the OPs No.1 to 3, for the sum of Rs.5,35,000/-. In the year 2022, complainant sold the said tractor to OP no.4 and requested the OPs No.1 to 3 to close the loan account on receipt of the remaining amount. As per the agreement, the remaining loan amount remains only Rs.66877/- but OPs have charged Rs.75460/-. Further, OPs have charged Rs.3250/-. OPs have failed to explain on what ground they have charged the excess amount. It appears that OPs have imposed the foreclosure charges, which is not justified as per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) vide circular RBI/2019-20/29-30 dated August 2, 2019, wherein it has clarified that bank shall not charged foreclosure charges/pre-payment penalties on home loans/all floating rate term loans sanction to individual borrowers.  It is also clarified that banks shall not charge foreclosure charges/pre payment penalties on any floating rate term loan sanctioned, for purpose other than business, to individual borrower with or without co-obligant(s).

13.           The definition of individual is reproduced as under:-

“An individual is that which exists as a distinct entity. Individuality (or self-hood) is the state or quality of being an individual; particularly (in the case of humans) of being a person unique from other people and possessing one's own needs or goals, rights and responsibilities”.

14.           The OPs have charged Rs.11,833/- (Rs.8533+Rs.3250) without any explanation, which are arbitrarily and unjustified. Hence act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

15.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs No.1 to 3 to refund the amount of Rs.11,833/- (Rs.8583+Rs.3250) to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and towards litigation expenses to the complainant. OPs No.1 to 3 are further directed to return the blank cheque no.29043 to the complainant. It is made clear if the said amount is not paid within stipulated period then this amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till its realization. The complaint qua OP No.4 stands dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of announcement of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
Dated:04.12.2024

         President,

      District Consumer Disputes                            

      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Sarvjeet Kaur)                                             

           Member