SMT. G. VASANTHAKUMARI, PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s case is that the complainant is a consumer under Sec.2 [1] [d] of the Consumer Protection Act, that the opp.party is rendering Banking and Financing Service, that the service rendered by the opp.party is the service under Sec. 2 [1] [o] of the Consumer Protection Act, that on 20..4..2005 the complainant availed a loan of Rs.7,43,000/- from the opp.party and entered into a contract with the agreement to repay Rs.9,18,908/- by 4 years with expiry date on 20..2..2009, that the said loan amount as per the agreement was availed by the complainant for the purpose of a new vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-02/V-2470, that the monthly instalments as per the agreement amounted Rs.18,500/-, that the complainant duly paid the instalments and if any delay occurred also paid interest for delayed period, that on 10..1..2008 the complainant was inclined to pay off the entire due amount in lump sum while the balance outstanding future due amounted Rs.2,49,908/- to close the account and to issue NOC and termination and the complainant was forced to pay the said amount since he was in urgency to have the termination and NOC from the opp.party, that by receiving Rs.2,49,908/- the opp.party illegally received a total amount of Rs.9,46,853/- inspite of Rs.9,18,908/-, that the act of the opp.party is illegal and unfair trade practice to deceit the complainant to have economic gain and thereby caused economic loss to the complainant and hence this complaint praying to have an order to refund the excess amount received by the opp.party and compensation and cost.
Opp.parties 1 to 3 filed version contending that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the complainant is not a consumer of these opp.parties under the Consumer Protection Act, that the complainant has not signed the complaint and some stranger has signed against the name of the complainant falsely claiming that he is the authorized agent, that no authorization of the complainant is annexed with the complaint, that it is doubtful whether the original complainant
is aware of this complaint, that the relationship between the complainant and opp.parties is purely contractual in nature and accordingly would be governed by the terms and conditions agreed upon between them and executed through a Loan Agreement dated 20..4..2005, that the complainant is now challenging the terms agreed by him in the said agreement, after enjoying all the fruits availed by him through the agreement, that this is not the proper Forum to challenge the legality and validity of a contract entered into by both parties mutually, that the complaint is an experimental one filed after the termination of the Agreement between the parties, that the complainant had without any complaints remitted the outstanding amounts and got the agreement terminated, that on 10..1..2008 the complainant paid Rs,2,92,000/- and cleared the entire transaction and got the agreement terminated, that now he is estopped from challenging the terms and conditions of the agreement, that if at all there was any illegality committed by the opp.parties, the complainant would not have remitted the entire amount and would not have caused to terminate the agreement, that the opp.parties have not received any excess amount from the complainant, that the transactions made by these opp.parties are transparent and a detailed statement of accounts was handed over to the complainant at the time of termination of the agreement, that the complainant was convinced of the statement of accounts given by these opp.parties, that the complainant is not disputing the calculations and the statement of accounts served to him by these opp.parties , that these opp.parties have not caused any mental agony or monetary loss to the complainant as alleged and the complaint is only to be dismissed with costs of these opp.parties.
4th opp.party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts as against this opp.party, that the 4th opp.party has been established for the purpose of regulating the issue of bank notes and keeping of reserves with a view to secure the monetary stability in India and generally to operate the currency and credit system of the country to its advantage, that this opp.party has been conferred with regulatory and supervisory powers over the banks under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, that this opp.party has not issued any specific guidelines relating to the foreclosure or prepayment charges of banks, that the decision to prescribe service charges has been left to the individual banks, that vide circular dated 16..5..2006, this opp.party advised banks to display and update on their website the details of various service charges in the formats enclosed to the circular, this opp.party is not a party to the contract between the complainant and opp.parties 1 to 3,, that the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opp.party.
Points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of the
opp.parties 1 to 3?
2. Reliefs and cost.?
For the complainant PW.1 was examined and marked Exts.P1 to P3
For the opp.party Ext. D1 was marked
POINT:1
The complainant has filed the complaint praying to direct the opp.parties to refund to him Rs.27,331/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 10..1..2008 alleging that opp.party No.1 had forced him to pay the aforesaid amount in excess of the agreed terms, while closing his loan account. Admittedly the complainant has availed a loan of Rs.7,43,000/- on 20..4..2005 from the first opp.party and entered into an agreement agreeing to repay Rs.9,18,908/- by 4 years with expiry date on 20..2..2009. Ext. P3 would substantiate the same. Ext.P3 also show that on 10..1..2008 the balance outstanding was Rs.2,49,908/-. Meanwhile the complainant decided to close the account by premature closure, But the first opp.party instead of Rs.2,49,908/- received Rs.2,92,000/-. Ext.P1 receipt would substantiate the same.. So according to the complainant the first opp.party received Rs.27,944/- as excess amount from the complainant and the act of the first opp.party functioning under opp.parties 1 and 2 is unfair trade practice and the excess amount received is liable to be refunded with interest.. But according to the opp.parties 1 to 3 the complainant voluntarily remitted the due payments and got the contract terminated and argued that the complaint does not disclose any calculations or proof for the alleged excess payments, and the complainant failed to convince the Forum about any extraction of the excess amount by the opp.parties. Even though in the complaint calculations regarding excess payment not made in detail it is stated that instead of Rs.9,18,908/-.opp.party 1 to 3 received Rs.9,46,853/- It follows that they received an excess amount of Rs.27,944/-. As we have already mentioned Ext.P3 statement of account would show that the agreement value comes to Rs.9,18,908/-. But they received Rs.9,46,853/-. So the above arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the opp.parties is of no help to the opp.parties
Further it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the opp.parties that the complainant is challenging the terms of the contract signed by him and the opp.parties which is out of the purview of the Hon’ble Forum. Ext. D1 is the loan agreement dated 20..4..2005 between the complainant and the opp.parties. But the case of the complainant is that he has put his signature in Ext. D1 without reading the same. In box PW.1 would swear that ilujv\vkSrl]lsfulnk\ Lfk Qe\ek T}fk. Further down he would swear before the Forum that agreement dlhliPj]kakRek fr\sr account close svu\fk tr\rk eyB\BlH Cgjulnk\; Ext.D1 Col.17 YedlgA dlhliPj]kakRe\ close svu\ulR 3 CfalrA interest rHdlR rjb\bX >lp\PUc\Fglsnr\r\ eyukr\rk? Ans. Lyjujh\h; Ext. D1 sh iUic\FdX Qr\rkA trju\]k Lyjujh\h. Ext. D1 is a carbon copy which contains 8 pages of loan agreement, one page of first schedule and another 1 page of number 2 schedule. The loan agreement is printed in very small print. In Ext. D1 page 7 it is stated that “if the Borrower desires to prepay the loan earlier than as indicated in the Second Schedule, foreclosure charges as indicated in the first schedule shall be payable by the Borrower on the balance outstanding on the date of such foreclosure in addition to the loan. The prepayment shall take effect only when cash has been paid or cheques have been cleared.” In the first schedule attached to it rate of premium payable for premature closure of the contract is seen written as 3%. It is pertinent to note that even though it is a printed form the writing 3% is carbon copy. So we feel whether Ext. D1 containing the first schedule was filled before getting the signature of the Borrower in the form. So taking the evidence as a whole the case of the complainant is that he has put his signature in the agreement without understanding the same cannot be brushed aside. It follows that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.7,43,000/- on 20..4..2005 from the opp.party agreeing to repay Rs.9,18,908/- by 4 years without understanding prepayment clause. The opp.party ought to have made him understand the above clause while he has availed the loan. It affects the Borrower and it is an unfair trade practice. Even though the opp.party received Rs.27,945/- in excess the complainant claimed refund of Rs.27,331/-. So also in box complainant has not stated anything regarding his mental agony in connection with this. So according to us he is not entitled to get any compensation on that ground. Point found accordingly.
POINT No.2
In the result , the complaint is allowed in part directing the opp.parties 1 to 3 to refund Rs.27,331/- to the complainant with cost Rs.1,000/- The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of order and in default it will carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2012.
I n d e x
List of witnesses for the complainant
PW.1. Yohannankutty
List of documents for the complainant
P1. – Receipt
P2. – RC Book of Vehicle Reg.No.KL-02/V-2470
P3. – Indus Bank Statement
List of witnesses for the opp.party :NIL
List of documents for the opp.party
Ext. D1. – Loan agreement
