ORDER (ORAL) Delay condoned. By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) , Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited (for short “the Finance Company“) and its Branch Manager, Opposite Parties in the Complaint, question the legality and correctness of the order dated 25.11.2016, passed by the Kerala State -2- Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.14 of 2016. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 30.10.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.134 of 2013 and has thus, dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioners herein. In the first instance, while allowing the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners in demanding a sum of ₹3,14,510/- against the principal loan amount of ₹2,72,000/-, as a pre-condition for foreclosure of the loan account, the District Forum had directed the Petitioners to accept from the Complainant the balance amount of ₹93,767/- (₹2,72,927/-minus ₹1,79,160/-) due from him along with interest @ 16% p.a. from 28.05.2015 and close the loan account, entering full satisfaction. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted at this stage itself that against the total amount of loan of ₹2,72,000/- raised by the Complainant from the Petitioners, for purchase of vehicle, admittedly he had remitted a sum of ₹1,87,150/-, yet the Finance Company was demanding an additional amount of ₹3,14,510/- for foreclosing the account. As noted above, the State Commission has affirmed the finding returned by the District Forum to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the -3- part of the Petitioners in demanding the afore-stated additional amount, after accounting for the amount already received, viz. ₹1,87,150/-, observing thus: “Admittedly the respondents availed of a loan of ₹2,70,000/- on 31.01.2011 from the appellants which is to be remitted in 48 instalments and the period of loan expires on 5/2/2015. It is in evidence that the respondent remitted ₹1,87,150/- from 7/3/2011 to 9/10/2012 without any default. In order to close the loan account and to remit the outstanding balance loan amount the respondent approached the appellant and it was informed that the respondent had to remit ₹2,33,000/- as balance loan amount. The respondent was ready to pay the balance amount with 16% interest as per the agreement which was not allowed by the appellant. Though the respondent approached the Legal Service Authority the appellants had not turned to settle the matter. We would like to point out that the respondent wanted to close the account and was ready to pay the loan amount in full with its interest. As per the loan agreement clause 12 pre-payment – the borrower shall be entitled to pre pay the entire outstanding amount under this agreement at any point of time by giving prior notice in writing. The appellants are entitled to charge termination charge of minimum 5% of the outstanding principle. In the instant case, the respondent was ready to pay the outstanding amount with interest was not allowed and charged highly. While contesting the case the respondent paid ₹71,250/- from 23/12/2014 to 28/05/2015 which clearly shows that the respondent was very genuine and was ready to pay the entire amount. The District Forum found that the Opposite Parties are deliberately denying the loan transaction by paying the entire loan amount in lump sum which amounts to unfair trade practice. This act of the appellants certainly amounts to deficiency in service by denying the opportunity to close the loan account and charging interest for the entire loan period. Hence we are of the considered view that the Forum rightly allowed the Complaint and we find no ground to interfere in the impugned order.” (emphasis supplied) Hence, the present Revision Petition. -4- Learned Counsel appearing for the Finance Company has strenuously urged that both the Forums below have committed material irregularity in returning the afore-noted finding and granting relief to the Complainant, by ignoring the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement. It is urged that the afore-said amount of ₹3,14,510/- was demanded from the Complainant strictly as per the terms of the said Agreement and the Complainant could not compel the Finance Company to foreclose the loan account on his own terms. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned Counsel. From a bare reading of the afore-extracted paragraph, it is manifest that out of the total loan amount of ₹2,70,000/-, which was to be repaid by the Complainant in 48 installments, during the period upto 05.02.2015, the Complainant had remitted ₹1,89,150/- from 07.03.2011 to 09.10.2012 without any default. However, in order to avoid further liability on account of interest, he requested the Petitioners to close his account by accepting the balance amount due against the said loan. Obviously, since the entire loan amount was to be paid by 05.02.2015, for which total period, the Finance Company was to get interest, the offer made by the Complainant for foreclosure of the loan account did not suit them as they would have lost interest for the remaining period. Since the terms and conditions of the loan -5- agreement permitted foreclosure of the account, subject to certain incidental charges, the conduct of the Petitioners in insisting on payment of substantial amount as interest, not only amounted to unfair trade practice, it was also deficiency in service on their part. We are thus, in full agreement with the view taken by the Fora below. In that view of the matter, we do not find any Jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference in the limited Revisional Jurisdiction vested in this Commission. Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. |
