IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 28th day of June, 2024
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 287/2023 (Filed on 11/09/2023)
Complainant : Rajesh K.M
S/o Maniyappan,
Kannassery House,
Kanakkary P.O
Kottayam – 686 632
(By Adv. Gopakumar. M.S)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The General Manager,
Maxvalue Credits and Investment Ltd.,
9/375/7 Cee Kay Plaza,
Opp. Metropolitan Hospital,
Koorkenchery,
Thrissur – 680 007
2) The Branch Manager,
Maxvalue Credits and Investment Ltd.,
Chempakacherry Building, Kodimatha Service
Co-Operative Bank Main Junction,
Kanjikuzhy, Kottayam – 686 004
3) The General Manager,
Maxvalue Credits and Investment Ltd.,
Ground Floor,
Manackal Building,
Thekkumgopuram,
Kottayam – 686 001
(By Adv. R. Ajith)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The petition is filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant availed a vehicle loan of Rs. 64400/- from the opposite parties on 05.01.2019 to purchase a motorcycle bearing registration number KL-05-AT-4750. As per the loan agreement, the repayment will be made in 36 installments of Rs. 2525/- each. From February 2019 on words, the complainant has started the repayment.
The repayment installments were collected by the opposite party's collection agents and collected from the house of the complainant. However, the collection agents of the opposite party were irregular, irresponsible, and negligent in their responsibilities. They have not issued proper receipts for the amount collected. When the complainant asked about the receipts, the opposite parties collection agents said that the receipts would be issued only after remitting the collected amount to the opposite party's bank.
In 2020, due to the spread of COVID-19, the installment payments defaulted for a few months, but the complainant continued to make payments after that. The complainant requested the opposing parties for a moratorium on loan repayment and interest subsidy during the COVID period, but the opposite parties provided no such relief or concession.
In September 2021, due to the treatment of his father-in-law, who was affected by cancer, the complainant faced severe financial difficulties and was unable to pay the subsequent installments. However, the complainant had paid 30 installments of Rs. 2525/- each to the collection agent of the opposite parties, leaving only six installments pending.
For the past few months, on several occasions, individuals from the opposing party's office have been calling the complainant, claiming that he has outstanding dues of over two lakh rupees and threatening that if the amount is not paid promptly, a cheque case will be filed against, and the vehicle will be seized and auctioned off. When the loan was sanctioned, a blank cheque from the Federal Bank was signed and handed over to the first opposite party as security. This blank cheque is being used to threaten the complainant with filing a case against him. Additionally, on 01/07/2023, a legal notice was issued to the complainant demanding the payment of Rs. 2,04,703 as outstanding dues within 15 days, failing which legal action would be taken.
According to the complainant, despite taking a loan of only Rs. 64,400/-after repaying three-fourths of the amount, demanding an outstanding sum of Rs. 2,07,450 is unjust and illegal and against existing banking laws and Reserve Bank regulations.
Due to the continuous threats from the opposite party and receiving a legal notice for a non-existent outstanding amount, the complainant has been experiencing severe mental stress and subsequent physical strain. Hence, this complaint is filed by the complainant, Praying for an order to restrain the opposie parties from seizing the complainant's vehicle with registration number KL-05-AT-4750 until the final resolution of the case and to direct the opposite parties to calculate the actual outstanding amount payable by the complainant to the opposite parties along with interest as per existing banking regulations, and granting permission and time to pay the same and appropriate compensation and cost of this complaint.
Upon notice from this commission, opposite parties appeared before the commission and filed a joint version contending as follows:
The complainant executed a loan agreement on 5-1-2019 and took a vehicle loan of Rs. 64,400/- to purchase the motorcycle with registration number KL-05/AT 4750. The complainant agreed to repay this amount, including interest and other charges, in 36 monthly installments of Rs. 2,555/-. The complainant was repaying this amount using the NACH facility. Neither from the complainant nor from his wife, any agents or employees of the opposite parties collected the monthly installments in cash. Upon payment, the complainant received a message on his mobile showing the payment details. The complainant stopped paying the monthly installments even before the onset of COVID-19.
The opposite parties are unaware of the complainant's difficulties. All the amounts paid by the complainant have been credited to the account. The statement that the complainant repaid '30' EMIs on time is false. The terms of the agreement were explained to the complainant in Malayalam. The payment of the monthly installments was irregular, and as per the terms of the agreement, the complainant agreed to pay the penalty for each day of delay in paying the monthly installments.
The statements that the opposite parties took blank cheques from the complainant are also false. The opposite parties have only demanded the amount legally due. The complainant had availed the moratorium facility. The opposite parties actions have not caused any distress or difficulty to the complainant. There has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked exhibit A1to A3. The witness of the complainant is examined as PW1.
Sinoy Alex, who is the Deputy Manager of the opposite party, filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked exhibit B-1 to B 3.
We would like to consider the following points in evaluating the complaint, version, and the evidence on record.
- Whether the complainant had succeeded to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
POINTS 1 & 2:-
There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant has availed a vehicle loan of Rs. 64,400 from the opposite parties on 5-1-2019 for the purchase of a motorcycle bearing registration number KL5 AT 4750.
Exhibit B-1 is the loan agreement executed by the complainant with the opposite parties to avail of the vehicle loan. On going through the exhibit B-1 we can see that the complainant agreed to repay the loan in 36 monthly instalments of RS.2555 each starting from 11-2-2019. Exhibit A1 further proves that the interest rate for the loan was 24.82% per annum. In clause number 2.2 of the exhibit B-1 agreement, it is stated that the rate of interest applicable to the loan is stated in the schedule, with monthly rates on the outstanding balance, namely the balance of the loan and unpaid interest, costs, charges and expenses outstanding at the end of the month.
Therefore, the rate of interest applies to the outstanding balance of the loan, which includes not only the principal amount but also any unpaid interest, costs, charges, and expenses that remain at the end of each month.
The specific case of the complainant is that all the installments were collected through the collection agents of the opposite parties, and the amount collected by the collection agents, who were contract workers of the opposite party, has not been properly credited to the loan account and which may cause discrepancies in the statement of account filed by the opposite party. Hence, the opposite party is liable for a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
In order to prove his case, the complainant examined his wife as PW1. According to her, the complainant paid 30 monthly equated installments through the collection agent of the opposite parties, but they have no receipts for the payment of the installments to the opposite parties. She further deposed that after the Covid-19 pandemic, the complainant had been paid three to five installments to the opposite parties.
The complainant himself admitted that the loan repayment was delayed for about six months during the year 2021 as he was in financial difficulties following the cancer treatment of his father-in-law. But thereafter he continued to repay the loan installments and repaid 30 installments.
Exhibit B2 is the copy of account statement regarding the loan account of the complainant. Exhibit B-2 shows that the complainant had paid only 15 monthly installments to the opposite parties. Exhibit B 2 proves that the complainant availed a moratorium for the payment of the loan from 10-3-2020 to 10 -8 -2020. Exhibit B2 further proves that the complainant had made a delayed payment every occasion. Thereby, the opposite party had levied overdue charges for the payment from the complainant. On going through the schedule attached to exhibit B-1 loan agreement, we can see that the opposite parties are entitled to levy Rs. 450 as cheque or NACH bounce charges. It is proved by exhibit B-2 that the mode of payment was through NACH. Hence, we cannot accept the deposition of the PW1, as the whole installment was collected by the agents of the opposite parties. On the careful evaluation of the above-discussed evidence,
we are of the opinion that the complainant miserably failed to prove his case with Cogent evidence.
In SGS India Ltd v. Dolphin International Ltd. has held that "The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. If the complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the respondent in the complaint. The rule of evidence before the civil proceedings is that the onus would lie on the person who would fail if no evidence is led by the other side. Therefore, the initial burden of proof of deficiency in service was on the complainant. "
Based on the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any unfair trade practice or deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. In the result the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of June, 2024
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Witness from the Side of the Complainant
PW1 - Soumya Devadas
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :
A1 - Copy of the Registration Certificate Vehicle No. KL-05-AT-4750
A2 - Copy of the Bank Pass Book Front page.
A3 - Copy of Legal Notice dated 1/07/2023 issued by the opposite party to
Complainant.
Exhibits from the side of Opposite parties :
B1 - Loan Agreement
B2 - Copy of Account Statement
B3 - Copy of resolution Passed on 31st March 2023
By Order,
Assistant Registrar
