SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT

Complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against OPs, for getting an order directing 1)  1^st OP, to close loan account in the name of the 1^st complainant by computing 8% per annum (flat rate) with effect from 21/03/2015 and by considering the sum of Rs.56,960/- already paid by the complainant. 2)  an order directing the 2^nd OP refund the sum of Rs.5000/- collected from this complainant under the head of service charge with 12%  interest per annum with effect from 21/03/2015 till realization together with Rs.10,000/- towards cost and also cost of the proceedings of the case.   The facts, in brief, are that 1^st complainant availed a vehicle loan from 1^st OP through the 2^nd OP.  The 2^nd OP represented the complainant that he is the authorized agent under 1^st OP and he would provide vehicular loan to the complainant with 8% interest per annum (flat rat).  Believing the words of 2^nd OP the 1^st complainant availed a loan of Rs.1,70,000/- from the 1^st OP during March 2015 for purchasing a Hundai Eeon car bearing registration No. KL-60-F-9870.   At the time of availing the said loan as instructed by 2ndOP, the complainants have signed several blank printed papers as well as the blank papers and a few blank stamp papers to the 2^nd OP towards security regarding the said transaction.  The complainant had also handed over 3 signed blank cheques (Union Bank of India Iritty Branch) has insisted by 2^nd OP.  No copy of any loan agreement or any other documents were handed over to the complainant and no opportunities were given to the complainant to peruse the blank printed forms by 2^nd OP before taking signatures of the complainants. At the time of signing the said blank papers, there was an understanding to pay Rs.5,965/- per month for a period of 48 months and a sum of Rs.5,000/- was also collected form 1^st complainant by way of service charge.   The 1^st complainant was regularly paying the loan installments till January 2016 and all together a sum of Rs.56,950/- is paid to the OPs.  During January 2016 the complainant  had an opportunity to peruse loan repayment schedule issued by 1^st OP regarding the loan availed by one Mr.P A Tijo of Rs.1,75,000/- during contemporary period.  The monthly installment payable by him only was 4,990/- and no service charge of Rs.5,000/- was also collected from the said Tijo.  Thereafter the complainant demanded the 2^nd OP to issue repayment chart, accordingly on 20/01/2016 the complainant received a repayment chart through e-mail.  On getting the chart the complainant was shocked to realize that the interest payable as per the chart is 14.85% interest per annum.  There after the complainant caused to issue a registered lawyer notice dated 30/01/2016 to the 1^st and 2^nd OPs to reschedule the loan account by fixing the agreed rate of interest at the rate of 8% per annum (flat rate).  Both the OPs’ duly  acknowledged the said letter.  Instead of complying the lawful demand made in the said notice the 2^nd OP preferred to send a reply through a lawyer by raising false and untenable contentions.  Hence complainant did not pay the installments from February 2016 onwards.  Thereafter the complainant contacted the OPs and expressed his willingness to close the loan liability on the basis of agreed interest at 8% per annum (flat rate).  Whereas the OPs are illegally demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pre closure charges and also threatened the complainant that they would forcefully repossess the car and initiative criminal procedures against the complainant by using singed blank cheques issued by the complainant towards the security at the time of availing the loan.  Complainant alleged that the OPs are imposing exorbitant interest and unconscionable rate of interest disregarding representation and assurance made by the 2^nd OP to the effect that the finance would arrange at interest rate of 8% per annum (flat rate) the OPs have no manner of right of levy pre-closure charges on this complainant for the high handed actions on their part.  Hence this complaint.

The OPs, in its reply, admitted the fact that complainant took a loan from them for purchasing vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-60-F-9870 and executed a loan agreement on 23^rd March 2015 between complainant and 2^nd OP.  OPs submitted that There is no customer and dealer relationship between the parties.  There is no complaint of deficiency of service as well.  Therefore the complainant is not entitled for any relief for want jurisdiction and maintainability.  There is no customer dealer relationship between the complainant and the OPs at all.  The complainant who is still operating the vehicle and he has not been paying the installments and thus he filed this complaint to escape from the payment of the dues by disputing the rate of interest etc.  All the allegations in the complaint are untrue and false and denied.  It is submitted that the loanee failed and defaulted to pay the amount in installments and hence the overdue compensation/penal charges accrued on the amount.  There is no unfair trade practice as alleged or otherwise.  There is no deficiency of service also. Hence no question to paying compensation as claimed.  Complainant is not eking out his lively hood from the vehicle and not employed and depending on the income derived there from.  The allegation that blank Stamp papers and cheques were collected while sanctioning loan is a false allegation.  There is no practice of obtaining blank stamp papers or cheques as security or otherwise as alleged in the petition.  No such papers and cheques were collected from the petitioner also.  It is nothing but a false allegation to escape from the liability to pay the amount with due interest.  The loan agreement copy and the payment chart etc were given to the complainant then and there and his present attempt to pretend ignorance is a tactful effort to escape from the liability to pay the amount to the OPs.  The service charge collected is as per rules of the company and the loanee has no right to challenge it at later stage.  The loan availed by one person cannot be equated with the loan availed by another as the circumstances and the risk factors are different.  In this case the complainant is raising false allegations and complaint without any truth or merit.  “The loan availed by P A Tijo is not a matter of concern for the complainant herein at all.  It has nothing to do with the complainant.  Thus he cannot compare and contrast at all.  He has filed this complaint suppressing the truth and therefore there  is no justification on his part in filing a complaint.  There is no truth or merit in the contentions of the complainant in this regard at all.  The installments which were remitted by the complainant to this OPs are properly accounted.  There was no question of non issuance of receipt to the installments paid.   The OPs are at liberty to proceed against the complainant under due process of law in case of default in payment of the amount.   The complainant is aware of the terms and conditions of the repayment of the amount and now he had filed a complaint without any truth or merit so as to escape from the recovery proceedings against the properties of the petitioner ad the guarantor.  Here the complainant wanted to prolog the matter and for which a false complaint has been filed incorporating totally false and untenable contentions. The OPs are legally entitled to proceed against the complainant to recover the amount due by legal means.  There is no unfair trade practice as alleged or otherwise.  There is no violations to the provisions of the MRTP Act as alleged.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs also.  The complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs as stated in the complaint.  The complainant has no case that he has made any payments and for which the receipts were not issued.  There is no foul play or illegal demand.  The rate of interest is clear from loan agreement and hence he cannot dispute the same now.  There was no occasion for the complainant to tender amount for premature closure at all.  It is false allegation.  The OPs are not bound to compensate the complainant as stated in the complaint or otherwise.  Hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

            On behalf of the complainants Pws including the complainant No.1 and one witness were examined and they were subjected to cross-examination by the OPs.  On behalf of OPs no witness was examined and documents Ext.A1 to A4 had been marked on the side of complainant.  Learned counsel for OP filed written argument note and also made oral argument.

            Admitted facts on the record that the complainant has obtained a vehicle Hundai Econ car bearing registration No. KL-60-F-9870 vide agreement dated 23/03/2015 with finance of Rs.1,70,000/- from 1^st OP.  Complainant has to pay back the loan amount in EMIS for a period of 48 months.  Further complainant had repaid altogether a sum of Rs.56,950/- to OP No.1 till January 2016.  Further complainant failed to pay EMIS from February 2016 onwards.

            Complainant alleged that he has availed the vehicle loan from OP on the assurance given by 2^nd OP, the authorized agent of OP No.1, that OP No.2 would provide vehicle loan to complainant with 8% interest per annum (flat rate) the EMIS amount.

            Further alleged that at the time of availing the said loan, the complainants have signed several blank printed papers and few blank papers and blank stamp papers and also handed over 3 signed blank cheques.  At the signing the said blank papers, there was an understanding to pay to Rs.5695/- per month for a period of 48 months.  Complainant’s another allegation is that at the time of executing loan agreement, OP had collected Rs.5,000/- as service charges instead of Rs.500/- as stated in the loan agreement.  Complainant submitted that OP collected exorbitant interest rate of 14.85% per annum instead of 8% interest per annum.  On the basis of such information got from one Mr. P A Tijo and from receiving the detailed repayment chart from the OP on his demand.  Complainant alleged that the monthly installment payable by Mr. Tijo who had availed a vehicle loan of Rs.1,75,000/- from OP, was Rs.4,990/- and no service charge of Rs.5000/- was also collected from him.

            OP contended that the complainant has to pay back the loan amount under the loan agreement in EMIS, but the complainant failed to remit EMIS after January 2015.  OP stated that till January 2015, the complainant had paid the EMIS correctly without any objection.   OPs denied the allegation of the complainant that blank stamp papers and cheques were collected while sanctioning loan.  According to OP there is no deficiency in service on their part and they have collected only the EMIS as agreed by the complainant in the loan agreement and the complainant filed this complaint to escape from the recovery proceeding against the properties of the complainant and the guarantor.  OPs further stated that there is no unfair trade practice or no violations to the provisions of the MRTP Act as alleged by the complainant.

            From the evidence it is revealed that the vehicle purchased by the complainant was being used for his personal use and not as a commercial vehicle.  Hence the plea of OP that complainant is not a consumer does not prevail.  According to OP at the time of granting loan, the EMI fixed as Rs.5695/- for 48 months and they were not changed the amount of EMI amount in further.  It is also submitted that out of Rs.2,73,341/-  complainant No.1 had repaid only Rs.57,050/- and still using the vehicle.

            The learned counsel for OP submitted that during evidence, complainant No.1(Pw1) had admitted the execution of agreement dated 23/03/2015, loan amount, tenure, interest rate, penal charges and monthly installments.  Further submitted that the complainant has no case that the agreement executed between the complainant and the OPs was under a mistake, fraud, coercion or compulsions and misrepresentation.  The only allegation that there is difference in rate of interest charged by the OPs from the complainant and one Mr. P A Tijo.

            After giving consideration to the contentions of both parties, our opinion that admittedly, the loan of Rs.1,70,000/- was taken by the complainant.  It is also not disputed that the loan agreement was signed by the complainant at the time of taking loan admitting the conditions stipulated in it, which means there was no dispute regarding the EMI amount.  Further there is no dispute that in default of repayment, loanee has to pay penal charge and overdue charges.  It is also admitted that till January 2016, he has no dispute about the EMI amount.  Further he has given the 3 cheques as per the conditions of the agreement.

            While going through the evidence of Pw2 in toto it is evident that he is an interested witness he has given the evidence as per the request of Pw1. Even though he is not an interested party the complainant is bound to pay the EMI as he agreed in the agreement.

            From the terms and conditions of the aforesaid document Ext.A3, it is clear that the EMI amount was Rs.5,695/- in 48 months.  The complainant was thus bound by the terms and conditions contained in the agreement.  He could have not come forward to say that the terms and conditions contained in such agreements, were, in any way, were not acceptable and unaware to him.  We cannot alter the terms and conditions, agreed between the parties.  The agreement is required to be interpreted, in accordance with the terms and conditions contained therein.  Here complainant failed to establish that the loan agreement was signed by him without his knowledge a mistake or misrepresentation.  Further complainant does not have a case that OP collected excess amount from him against the terms mentioned in the agreement.

            Further there is no evidence that OP had collected Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.500/- as service charge from the complainant.  Considering all those facts as mentioned above, complainant is liable to repay the loan amount as per the agreement executed by him and the OP No.1. We are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side o f OPs and the complainant’s intention is to escape from the liability to pay the loan repayment amount to OPs

            In the result complainant fails to establish his case and hence it is dismissed.  No order as to cost.  Since the complaint is dismissed, the injunction order pending against opposite party ie to seize the vehicle also stands vacated.

Exhibits.

A1           - Lawyer notice

A2           - Reply notice

A3           - Loan chart

A4           - Loan chart of another person (subject to proof)

Pw1       - Complainant

Pw1       - Complainant

Pw2       - Tijo P A – witness of complainant

     Sd/                                                                          Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                   MEMBER                                                   MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forward by order/

Assistant Registrar