DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.240/2007

1.      Sh. Suresh Chandra Gupta

2.      Smt. Sunita Rani                                              

          W/o Sh. Suresh Chandra Gupta

          Both R/o

          120, Sandesh Vihar, IVth Floor,

          Near Metro Grill Restaurant

          Pitampura, Delhi                                         ….Complainants

Versus

1.      M/s Citi Financial Consumer

Finance India Ltd.

through its CEO,

3, LSC, Pushp Vihar,

New Delhi-110062

2.      Sh.  Ravi Shankar Singh

          Manager Executive,

          M/s Citi Financial Consumer

Finance India Ltd.

3, LSC, Pushp Vihar,

New Delhi-110062

3.      Sh. Amresh Kumar Jha

          Direct Selling Agent (DSA)

          M/s Citi Financial Consumer

Finance India Ltd.

3, LSC, Pushp Vihar,

New Delhi-110062

4.      Sh. Vikrant Singh

          Direct Selling Agent (DSA)

          M/s Citi Financial Consumer

Finance India Ltd.

3, LSC, Pushp Vihar,

New Delhi-110062                                       ….Opposite Parties

                                                  Date of Institution      :      05.02.2007        Date of Order              :      07.12.2017

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that in pursuance of an advertisement published by the OPs in the newspaper in 2005 for availing housing loan, commercial loan etc. the complainant contacted the OP No.2 who told the complainant that the OP No.3, 4 or Sh. Ajay Kumar, official of OP No.1 would approach the complainant and they would tell him all the procedures for granting the loan as required by the complainant. On 15.11.05 one man, namely, Sh. Ajay Kumar visited the residence of the complainant and stated that he was known to OP No.3 & 4 and he had come to verify the property and brief of the basic formalities required for granting the loan by OP No.1.  Sh. Ajay Kumar also told that the complainant had to initially pay Rs.30,000/- towards processing fee as per rules of OP No.1.  On the assurance of Sh. Ajay Kumar, the complainant hesitangly handed over a blank cheque No.418732 dated 15.11.05 besides Rs.30,000/- in cash to Sh. Ajay Kumar who told the complainant that the loan required by him shall be sanctioned within a week.  It is stated that  thereafter on 24.11.2005 the OP No.3 & 4 came to the residence of the complainant and convinced the complainant that the agent commission shall be charged @ 1% of the total amount of loan sanctioned and it was a very  less charge as per the OP No.1’s rules.  They assured the complainant that the loan amount might be sanctioned for Rs.2 crores to Rs.2.25 crores and their commission shall be @ 1% i.e. Rs.2,25,000/-. They further assured the complainant that the rate of interest shall be @ 7% annual and the same shall be charged on diminishing balance method.  The OP No.3 & 4 also demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant  as processing fee and assured the complainant that the amount shall be adjusted from the total commission i.e. Rs.2,25,000/- which annoyed the complainant but the OP No.3 & 4 convinced and made fool of the complainant “that one cheque shall be issued for the same amount of Rs.30000/- and they assured the complainant that in case the loan shall not be sanction the cheque can be encash by the complainant”.  They took away the amount of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant and  OP No.3 gave a blank name  cheque No.015389 of Rs. 30,000/- drawn on the Canra Bank, G. P. Extension, New Delhi to the complainant. They also gave details in writing regarding commission received and due balance to be received and the same was signed by OP No.4. They assured the complainant that the loan amount shall be sanctioned within a week and the sanction letter shall be issued very soon. It is stated as under:-

“4.   That the O.P. No.4 advised to Complainant to issue the seven Blank named cheque as security  cheque signed by the Complainant and another seven  signed cheque shall be issued by the Complainant  wife Ms. Sunita Rani through her own account. He taken 14 (7 + 7) blank named cheque drawn on ANDHRA BANK, Sector-14, Rohini, New Delhi-110085…”

“6.     That on 29/12/2005 the property was registered against which the loan amounting Rs.2.10 crore was sanction.  The O.P. No.3 & 4 came with  lawyer of Citifinancial at  the office of the registrar where the property was to b registered and they handed over the two Bank Draft for Rs.19,99,304/- ( Total amount Rs.39,98,608/-) which  were in the name of Ms. Renu Goel,  actual owner of the property registered.  The said property was registered on the same day. The officer of the bank Citifinancial said the complainant that the first part loan has been passed for Rs.4050000/- out of sanction loan Rs.2.10 crores.  They given Bank Draft only for Rs.39,98,608/- and didn’t disclosed to the Complainant that where the remaining amount Rs.51392/- (Rs.40,50000/- 3998608/-) gone. The O.P’s also didn’t provide the details for charging the amount Rs.51392/-.”

“7.     That when the Complainant approached the Citifinancial for remaining amount of loan sanctioned (Rs.2.10 Crore –Rs.40,500/-) the O.P. No.2 assured that the remaining amount shall be given within a week when registration of the property will come in effect and documents/paper of the property would received by the Citifinancial. The Complainant against approached to the O.Ps after 10 days when the original documents of the property was received by the Citifinancial but they again assure the Complainant that remaining amount of loan  shall be delivered within 15 days. In  meanwhile the O.P. No.3 & 4 came to the residence of the Complainant for remaining amount of commission and they taken away Rs.2,32,000/- in different day within 15 days. They always assured the Complainant when he asked for the remaining amount of loan  sanctioned. The Complainant was very much needy for the remaining loan amount because he had made commitment with his business dealing and also given in advanced for booking  the material and machinery for his running business. The complainant was confident that  the loan amount shall be received by him within week as assured by the Citifinancial.”

“8.     The Complainant received the sanction letter of loan from the O.Ps on despite of repeated reminders in which the sanction loan amount was shown for Rs.2.10 crore and EMI shown for Rs.244020 for 120 monthly  installment which was in the category of 7% interest as per the all banks formats and Guide line of the RBI…”

“9.     The Complainant shocked when he received the details of the installment and rate of interest charged which was @ 10% on the first part loan of Rs.40,50,000/-. The  details dated 04/01/2006 was sent at the address of elder brother of the Complainant house no.126, Depali Enclave, Pitam Pura, Delhi-110034 which received by the Complainant on 13/01/2006. When the complainant approached the O.P.s to know about the variation of the rate of interest which had increased 7% to 10% . They didn’t take any response and said that these charges are happened due to change of the bank rules. The Complainant was helpless and couldn’t do any thing except to follow the  cheating rule of Citifinancial and its officials. The  Citifinancial has been charged excess rate of interest @ 3% (10% -7%) on Rs.40,50,000/- till the date of foreclosure almost for  the period of one year that amount comes around Rs.Rs.1,21,500/-. This is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. and monopolistic trade practice…”

“10.   That Complainant again shocked when he came to know that the many cheque has been encashed form his/her account he/she further shocked when came to know that the all cheques were issued to the O.P. No.3 & 4 on demand as security cheque as per the Citifinancial rule. The all three cheques were deposited in his Bankers by the O.P. No.3, Sh. Amresh Kumar Jha for encashment in different dates. The details of the same are given below :

…………

…………

“13.   That despite of repeated visits and reminders for the remaining loan to the O.Ps, just after five  months, in the month of June 2006 the part payment of loan Rs.24 lacs was given to the complainant. The amount of previous loan was collaborated with the new amount Rs.2400000/- and shown the rate of interest @ 10.25% annual. The Complainant approached the O.Ps for taking the details of the disbursal amount of loan they issued a letter dated 19/12/2006 in which both amount of loan  has been shown….”

…………

…………

…………

“17.   That complainant approached  the O.Ps to settle the loan amount  then they started  to bargain and threat to charge @ 5% for foreclosure then said @ 3% on the total amount loan.  The O.Ps always concealed the rule on the basis they manipulating the innocent Consumer and charging whatever they wish to charge.  The O.Ps. told the Complainant that if he wish to settle the loan he has to pay Rs.2442037/- and Rs.4019263/-. The complainant approached the ICICI bank and said to prepare the bank draft for the same amount and finally same amount was given by complainant to the Citifinancial on 02.01.2007….”

“18.   That the O.P. No.1 charged @ 3% as a foreclosure on the amount of Rs.6500000/- (Rs. 2442087 + 4019263/-) from the Complainant illegally, erroneously and by manipulating their own. The complainant always request the O.Ps to tell the rule on basis they are charging the amount in different way from the Complainant.  The Complainant has always suffered from every side and the O.Ps never missed the chance to harassed the complainant even monetary and mentally. The complainant how much suffered it  can not be calculated in terms of money but in the monetary part he suffered that has been calculated as under:-

                                                                     Total   Rs.12,71,140/-”

Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainants have filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:-

“a)     to direct the opposite parties to refund the amount charged from the complainant erroneously along with interest @ 12% p.a. with rests, total amounting to Rs.12,71,140/-.

b)      to direct the Opposite Parties to pay compensation  of Rs. 100000/- for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.25000/-  as litigation charges and costs to the Complainant against the opposite parties.”

          OPs No.1 to 4 in their reply have inter-alia stated that the complainant was disbursed a loan of Rs.40,50,000/ on 29.12..2005 vide loan account No. 7222112 dated 17.12.2005. The said loan was availed at an interest rate of 10.5% and the complainant was required to repay the loan in 125 equated installment of Rs.53,522/- each.  It is stated that in pursuance of this, the complainant paid five installments of Rs.53,522/- each for the month of Feb- June, 2006 and on the request of the complainant the said loan  was preclosed on 30.06.2006. It is further stated that the complainant was well aware of the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement as the loan was disbursed subsequent to his signing the Loan Application Form out of his free consent.  It is further stated that the rate of interest was also clearly and specifically stipulated in the said Loan Agreement. It is submitted that the Complainant signed the loan agreement with his free consent and was well aware of the terms and conditions of the same and as such the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. It is denied that the loan was assured to be sanctioned on 7% rate of interest. It is denied that the Complainant was harassed in any way or any excess amount has been charged from the complainant by the OP. It is submitted that the amount charged by the OPs was according to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. It is submitted that the loan amount was partly sanctioned and rest of the amount was denied according to the due process of the agreement.  Other averments made in the complaint have been denied. OP No.1 to 4 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          No rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the Complainants.

Both the complainants have filed their affidavits in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. S. Hussain Nawaz Naqvi, AR has been filed in evidence  on behalf of the OPs.

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.

We have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainants. None has appeared on behalf of the OPs to advance arguments despite opportunity given in this behalf.

We have also gone through the file very carefully.

Amount of loan taken by the complainants from OP-1 company was to the tune of Rs.2.10 crore (as per the averments made in the complaint) out of which first part of loan to the tune of Rs.40,50,000/- had been disbursed to the complainants after deducting Rs.51,392/- (total amount paid Rs.39,98,608/-). In their reply, OPs have stated that the loan of Rs.40,50,000/- had been disbursed to the complainant on 29.12.2005.

According to the complainants, the rate of interest had to be @ 7% per annum. On the other hand, according to the OPs, the rate of interest was to be calculated @ 10.5% per annum.

Admittedly, the complainants got the loan foreclosed and the OPs charged @ 3% as pre-closure charges on the amount of Rs.65,00,000/- (Rs.24,82,087/- plus Rs.40,19,283/-). The complainants have asked this Forum to issue direction to the OPs to refund the amount charged from them erroneously.

Thus, the amount of the loan which admittedly exceeded Rs.20,00,000/- has to be taken into consideration while calculating the alleged amount of excess payment taken by the OPs from the complainants while foreclosing the loan account of the complainants. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the complaint is outside the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum.

Secondly, it is not the case of the complainants that they had accepted the terms of foreclosure of the loan account in question under some protest or by reserving their right to take proper action against the OPs according to law. Though, this plea has not been taken on behalf of the OPs but, however, it being a mixed question of fact and law the Forum can take notice of this fact. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the complainants are now estopped from their own conduct and acquiescence from agitating the matter before this Forum.

Thirdly, it is not the case of the complainants that they had been made to sign the agreement under the pressure or the terms and conditions were not made known to them or that they had been made to sign the papers/ documents/ agreement under misrepresentation or being unlawfully influenced by the OPs.

Copy of the sanction letter of the loan amount to the tune of Rs. 2,10,00,000/- has been placed on the record which is  Ex. C1/5.

Para 13 of the complaint reads as under:-

“13. That despite of repeated visits and reminders for the remaining loan to the OPs, just after five months, in the month of June 2006 the part payment of loan Rs. 24 Lacs was given to the Complainant. The amount of previous loan was collaborated with the new amount Rs.24,00,000/- and shown the rate of interest @ 10.25% annual. The complainant approached the OPs for taking the details of the disbursal amount of loan they issued a letter dated 19.12.2006 in which both amount of loan has been shown.”

It shows that according to the complainants, OP had also sanctioned another loan amount and the amount of the previous loan has been collaborated with the new amount loan of Rs.24,00,000/- in which the rate of interest was shown @10.25% annually.

Copy of the letter dated 19.12.2006 in this regard has been marked as Ex. C1/8 in which the new loan account number has been shown as 8867531/ 8716214 and “net dues from old loan reference no. 7222112” has been shown as Rs.39,27,416/-.

Here also it is not their case that they were made to sign the second loan agreement without knowing their contents.

Therefore, we hold that the complainants being fully known of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement/s are not entitled to plead that there was / is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

In view of the above discussion, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 07.12.2017.