Kerala

Idukki

CC/127/2018

Sanjo Thomas - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing director IndusInd Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Shiji Joseph

27 Sep 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :26/06/18

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 27^th day of September 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO. 127/18

Between

Complainant : Sanjo Thomas, S/o Thomas,

Vettikkakuzhiyil House, Mariyapuram P.O.,

Mariyapuram Kara, Thankamani Village,

Idukki Taluk, Idukki District.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Party : 1 . Indusind Bank Ltd.,

Rama Bhavan No.26, Near Parutheli Palam,

Toll Junction, Edappally, Kochi- 682 024.

Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director.

2 . Gireesh, State Head,

Kerala PV- CFD, Indusind Bank Ltd.,

Rama Bhavan No.26, Near Parutheli Palam,

Toll Junction, Edappally, Kochi- 682 024.

3 . Anilkumar,

Hub Head – Passenger Vehicle, Indusind Bank Ltd,

Rama Bhavan No.26, Near Parutheli Palam,

Toll Junction, Edappally, Kochi- 682 024.

4 . Swaroop, Business Development Manager,

Indusind Bank Ltd., Rama Bhavan No.26,

Near Parutheli Palam, Toll Junction,

Edappally, Kochi- 682 024.

5 . Dipu Divakar, State Credit Manager CFD,

Indusind Bank Ltd., Rama Bhavan No.26,

Near Parutheli Palam, Toll Junction,

Edappally, Kochi- 682 024.

6 . The Branch Manager,

Indusind Bank Ltd., 1^st Floor, Opposite

Sub Station Kattappana, Idukki – 685 515.

(All By Adv: Eby Thomas)

(Cont....2)

 

-2-

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant purchased a Mahindra Bolero vehicle (Reg No.KL/06/G/5671) by availing vehicle loan of Rs.4,75,000/- from 6^th opposite party agreed to repay the amount with interest in 48 installments @ Rs.13,110/- without any default the complainant remitted whole installments. But the opposite parties did not credited the amount in the said loan account and more over it is revealed that the opposite parties without the knowledge of the complainant took insurance of the vehicle, in spite of adequate insurance is taken by the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the opposite parties realized 36% interest. AIC system journal charge and demanded Rs.26,318/- from the complainant. The complainant already has paid the penal interest for delayed payments.

 

Complainant further contented that after availing this loan, opposite parties collected Rs.15,000/- as additional insurance charges and Rs.260/- as GPA premium. The opposite parties has not issue a policy copy of health insurance and GPA, till date. The deduction of vehicle insurance premium, health insurance premium and GPA made the loan repayment in default. The 13^th installment onwards the opposite parties charged amounts varying from 150 to 1675 as AIC system journal charges, which the complainant is not liable to pay. In order to make the complainant a defaulter the opposite parties denying all these unlawful activities.

 

The hidden charges realized from the complainant by the opposite parties by way of health insurance and GPA premium are without the consent of the complainant and it amounts gross deficiency in service on their part. Hence the complainant caused irresponsible loss as the default in the loan entered in the CIBIL and due to that the credit rating of the complainant become very poor, and this caused much pain and hardships to the complainant.

 

(Cont....3)

 

-3-

Hence the complainant filed this petition for allowing the relief such as to direct the opposite parties re-calculate the loan account by deducting the premium health insurance GPA and penal interest illegally collected from the complainant and further directed the opposite parties to pay compensation and cost.

 

Upon notice the 6^th opposite party entered appearance and the first opposite party filed detailed reply version by admitting the disbursement of loan amount. Opposite parties further contented that at the time of availing the loan complainant was executed a loan agreement on 31/01/14 and agreed to repay the same with interest charge of Rs.1,41,550/- and insurance charges of Rs.15,000/- totaling Rs.6,31,550/- in equated monthly installments of 48 months. Opposite parties further contented that the renewal of motor insurance policy is a part and parcel of the loan application signed and submitted by the parties. The complainant has not produced any renewed third year insurance policy. Opposite parties has no knowledge regarding the renewal of insurance policy by the complainant. On 25/02/17, an amount of Rs.14803/- was debited in the above loan account with regard to the additional amount incurred for renewal of insurance policy. Due to the non payment of this amount and non payment of monthly installments on the stipulated date, additional interest also accrued in the loan account. The CIBIL report of the complainant is showing only the repayment history of the loan account. As per the agreed terms of loan agreement, complainant is liable to pay additional interest for the delayed /defaulted installments.

 

The complainant signed the loan agreement only after satisfying the terms and condition of the loan transaction. Hence there is no deficiency in service involved in this subject matter, all which is based upon a contract between the parties. In this case the complainant had absolutely violated the terms of the loan agreement from the very moment he defaulted with the payment of installments, hence the complainant is not entitled for any claim. The repayment period has expired on 01/12/17 and as per the statement of account if the above said loan as on 20/09/18 an amount of Rs.27319/- is overdue and Rs.9340/- is pending towards additional interest.

 

(Cont....4)

-4-

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 loan account statement and Ext.P2 notice dated 30/05/18 were marked. From the opposite parties side except the written version, no 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 ?

 

The Point:- We have heard the counsel for both parties and had perused the evidence on record. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle loan was granted by the 6^th opposite party to the complainant and the complainant has agreed to repay it with 48 monthly installments @ Rs.13,110/-. As per the averments in the complaint it is seen that complainant remitted the whole 48 installments. Complainant further pleaded that the opposite parties realized Rs.15,000/- by way of vehicle insurance premium and GPA without the consent of the complainant, where he already took the vehicle insurance. Regarding the contention of vehicle insurance premium, no evidence is produced by the complainant to convince that for the period where the opposite parties debited Rs.15,000/- for vehicle insurance premium, complainant also took vehicle policy by remitting the premium from his pocket. Hence the question of debiting Rs.15,000/- by way of vehicle insurance policy cannot be contradicted by the complainant with sufficient material evidence.

 

Then regarding the realization of additional amount by way of AIC system journal no sufficient reply is given by the opposite parties. Even though opposite parties filed a detailed reply version nothing is mentioned relating to this issue. On perusing Ext.P2 loan statement of account, it is seen that, the opposite parties bank realized much more amount from complainant in their head. But no jurisdiction is given by the opposite parties bank how they added this much amount in the head AIC system journal and under what authority they added this amount in this loan account. More over it is very pertinent to note that opposite parties has failed to produce any evidence in establishing the contention of their

(Cont....5)

-5-

reply version. Opposite parties accordingly failed to produce the loan agreement and loan account statement as on date. Hence lack of clear and concrete evidence, Forum is decided to discard the arguments and contention of the opposite parties in this matter.

 

On the basis of above discussion Forum is of a considered view that the version of the complainant can be considered relating to the issue of realizing additional amount by way of AIC system journal and GPA by the opposite parties, in their loan account.

 

Hence complaint allowed in part. The 6^th opposite party is directed to calculate the loan account by properly according the loan repayment by deducting the illegally collected AIC system journal charges and GPA premium. Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 3000/- as litigation cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of September, 2019.

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 -Sanjo Thomas

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 -Loan account statement

Ext.P2 -Notice dated 30/05/18

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Forwarded by Order,

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT