Delhi

StateCommission

CC/837/2019

DHIRENDER KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MOHD. SULEMAN KHAN

24 Sep 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 24.09.2019

Date of Decision : 14.10.2019

COMPLAINT NO.837/2019

            In the matter of:

 

Shri Dhirender Kumar,

S/o. Late Shri Mamchand,

R/o. 5294, Third Floor,

Plot No.51 K, Kolhapur Road,

Kamla Nagar,

New Delhi-110007.

 

Smt. Bijendari,

W/o. Shri Dhirender Kumar,

R/o. 5294, Third Floor,

Plot No.51 K, Kolhapur Road,

Kamla Nagar,

New Delhi-110007.………Complainant

Versus

 

1. Cholamandalam Investment &

Finance Company Ltd.,

Branch Office:

2.  

New Delhi-110005.

 

Regd. Office:

No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road,

Dare House, First Floor,

Parrys, Chennai-600001.

 

2. CEO/ Director/ Manager,

M/s. Cholamandalam Investment &

Fonance Company Ltd.,

No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road,

Dare House, First Floor,

Parrys, Chennai-600001.

 

3. Sales Maanger,  

Cholamandalam Investment &

Finance Company Ltd.,

 

Branch Office:

2.  

New Delhi-110005.      ……..Opposite Parties

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1. The complainants are husband and wife. They have filed complaint against OP-1, its CEO/ Director / Manager who is OP-2 and its Sales Manager who is OP-3. The complainants applied for loan and submitted collateral security of property no.5294, third floor, plot no.51 K, Kohlapur Road, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. The OP  mis-represented to lure  the complainants that rate of interest charged by them was flexible, which gets reduced after few part payments of instalments. On any day the rate of interest would not exceed 14% annually.
2. The loan of Rs.41 lakhs was disbursed vide letter dated 30.11.13. The OPs  did not provide copy of loan  agreement and stated that the same needed to remain with OP. The complainants were diligent in making payment of EMIs fixed at Rs.63,660/-, he paid 120 months starting from 06.01.14. Even after that the OP showed balance of Rs.38,19,600/-. OP did not reduce rate of interest as told to complainants at the time of loan processing.
3. Sales Manager in assistance  with Shri Vipin, employee of OP-1 digressed complainant’s concern by offering a pre approved loan (top-up) of Rs.24 lakhs to existing loan amount. They lured the complainants by mis-representing that they would charge only 12% interest on the top-up loan and would reduce the same to 10% after part payment. It was further represented that rate of interest of original loan would be reduce to 10%. The monthly instalments of top-up loan was Rs.28,805/- payable from 06.06.16. They have repaid 24 monthly instalments out of 180 installments of top-up  loan amounting to Rs.6,91,320/-. The OP-1 did not reduce rate of interest of either loan amount.
4. OP-1 unilaterally increased number of instalments of original loan from 120 to 121 without approval and intimation to complainants. OP-1 acted in contravention of guidelines of fair practice, code of NBFC dated 06.03.12 by not providing copy of both the loan agreement. Hence this complaint for directing OP-1 to reimburse the excess amount charged @14% and 12% interest for original loan and top-up loan respectively. They have also prayed for adjusting excess amount against pending monthly instalments. It has also been provided that this Commission should fix rate of interest going forth as per guidelines, directions of RBI pertaining to average based rate charged by NBFC-MFIs and / or to reduce the future rate of interest @10% for both the loans.
5. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments for the purpose of admission. The copy of sanction letter is available at page-15. It is true that it shows rate of interest was floating but  it does not contain any provision to reduce the same after making part payment. Once the agreement has been reduced into writing, any oral term is not permissible as per Section 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act. The same is barred by rule of parole evidence.
6. I am unable to appreciate that direction for reimbursement for excess amount and directions for adjusting the excess amount both can be given simultaneously. That would amount to put the complainant at double gain.
7. Directions to revise the rate of interest is beyond the scope of relief permissible under Consumer Protection Act.
8. the complaint is dismissed in limine.
9. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
10. File be consigned to record room.

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                     

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

•