DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 639/2016
Date of Institution : 19.09.2016
Date of Decision : 17.08.2017
M/s Raj Communications, B-IV/791/B, Jandawala Road, Old Radha Swami Gali, Barnala, District Barnala through its Prop. Rajwinder Singh s/o Malkiat Singh.
…Complainant
Versus
M/s HDB Financial Services Ltd., B-X/424, College Road, Above Bank of India, Near Old Bus Stand, Barnala through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. RK Singla counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Anuj Mohan counsel for opposite party.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President
2. Shri Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant Raj Communications, Barnala through its Proprietor Rajwinder Singh has filed the present complaint against HDB Financial Services Limited, Barnala opposite party under Consumer Protection Act (in short the Act).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant thought to take a loan to run business under the name and style of M/s Raj Communications to earn livelihood through self employment and for this purpose he approached the opposite party. They told the complainant that their interest rates are as per RBI Guidelines and opposite party shall charge no processing fee, charges and hidden expenses for the disbursement of loan. Complainant deposited two original sale deeds of properties, copy of TS-1 and other documents with the opposite party and after going through the said documents opposite party told the complainant that he can avail the loan of Rs. 30,36,679/-. On their asking the complainant also gave his bank Account number to the opposite party.
3. It is alleged that complainant was surprised to see that an amount of Rs. 29,54,062/- has been transferred as loan amount by the opposite party. The complainant approached the opposite party and asked for remaining loan amount and interest rate but the opposite party avoided the complainant on one pretext or the other and did not give any satisfactory reply.
4. It is further alleged that the loan was sanctioned on 4.2.2015 and complainant deposited 15 monthly installments of Rs. 50,868/- each. The complainant visited the office of the opposite party and asked for remaining loan amount and rate of interest charged but to no effect. Then, the complainant asked the opposite party to tell him the remaining loan amount so he may clear the entire loan amount. On this the opposite party handed over a letter dated 14.7.2016 asking the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 30,05,461.03 otherwise his original sale deeds will not be returned to him. Under the compelled circumstances the complainant took a loan from M/s Cholamandlam Finance @ 12.5% per annum and deposited the said amount with the opposite party under protest. The original sale deeds of the complainant were given back to him. The complainant is entitled to get back the excess amount charged from him.-
Amount Sanctioned Rs. 30,36,679/-
Amount Disbursed Rs. 29,54,062/-
Difference Rs. 82,659/-
Amount deposited by the complainant Rs. 7,63,020/-
in 15 installments of Rs. 50,868/- each
Thus the act of opposite party raising the demand of Rs. 30,05,461.03 vide letter dated 14.7.2016 inspite of fact that the complainant has deposited Rs. 7,63,020/- is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Therefore, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
1) The opposite parties may be directed to the opposite party to pay the sum of Rs. 82,659/- less loan amount disbursed by the opposite party alongwith interest charged by the opposite party on the said amount till realization.
2) To give detail of the loan amount disbursed, sanctioned and interest charged on the loan.
3) To return the excess amount charged from the complainant vide letter dated 14.7.2016 after adjusting the amount of Rs. 7,63,020/- in the loan account alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of payment till realization.
4) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment.
5) To pay Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
6) Any other relief which this Forum deems fit.
5. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite party has filed written reply taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of maintainability, complainant is not a consumer, no locus standi, complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands. It is submitted that at the time of loan, each and every thing was fully explained to the complainant and after understanding and accepting the same, complainant signed the loan agreement No. 860931. In the said loan agreement Schedule-1 clearly shows the rate of interest in the Clause No. 11 and other detail in Clause No. 14 and the complainant after admitting the same signed it.
6. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant took a loan facility of Rs. 30,36,679/- on 31.12.2014 from the opposite party for his business purpose and at the time of loan the opposite party explained all the terms and conditions regarding the loan to the complainant and after accepting all the terms and conditions related to loan, the complainant signed the loan agreement. It is further submitted that the opposite party has not charged any hidden charges from the complainant at the time of loan or afterward. Each and every thing explained to the complainant and after admitting the same, complainant signed the loan agreement.
7. It is admitted that the amount of Rs. 29,54,062/- was transferred to the account of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement. It is submitted that the loan amount was sanctioned to the complainant on 19.1.2015 of Rs. 30,36,679/- alongwith agreed rate of interest as per loan agreement and total amount payable of Rs. 59,00,688/- in 116 monthly installments and EMI amount of Rs. 50,868/- and first installment due was on 4.2.2015 and the last installment was due on 15.9.2024 but complainant has deposited total amount of Rs. 8,80,099/- in installments against 116 installments. In the month of July, complainant approached the opposite party to settle his loan account, on his request opposite party issued a prepayment letter on 14.7.2016 to the complainant to deposit the full and final settlement amounting to Rs. 30,05,461/- but the complainant deposited Rs. 30,25,539/- on 28.7.2016 as full and final settlement as per request of the complainant benefit/waiver of Rs. 19,95,000/- given by the opposite party to the complainant at the time of prepayment of loan account. The complainant wants to settle his loan account and on the request of complainant opposite party issued the prepayment letter on 14.7.2016 and after that on 28.7.2016 complainant made payment of Rs. 30,25,539/- to the opposite party and cleared his loan account as per his request. Opposite party also deducted those amount which the complainant was deposited in installments which amounting to Rs. 8,80,099/- and opposite party also given a benefit/waiver of Rs. 19,95,000/- to the complainant at the time of prepayment of his loan account. The opposite party never charged any excess amount beyond the signed agreement from the complainant. The complainant filed a complaint to harass the opposite party without any reason. The opposite party prayed for the dismissal of present complaint.
8. In order to prove his case, complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, original document acknowledgment Ex.C-2, repayment schedule Ex.C-3, account statement Ex.C-4, copy of letter Ex.C-5, copy of letter Ex.C-6, copy of letter Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.
9. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Vikash Verma Ex.OP-1, copy of loan agreement Ex.OP-2, copy of schedule A Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.
10. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
11. Now the question is to be determined whether there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for charging the excess amount of Rs. 82,659/-.
12. In order to prove his case the complainant has placed on record the affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1 wherein he has reiterated his case as mentioned in the complaint. Apart from his affidavit he also placed on record repayment schedule Ex.C-3 which shows that the loan was financed against property to the tune of Rs. 30,36,679/- and it was to be paid in 120 monthly installments of Rs. 50,868/- The balance at the end of 120th installment shows as Nil. The complainant has also relied upon account statement Ex.C-4 from 1st January 2015 to 30th June 2015 and letter of prepayment of loan account Ex.C-5 indicating the total amount payable to the tune of Rs. 30,05,461.03 p. The case of the complainant is that the loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs. 30,36,679/- whereas an amount of Rs. 29,54,062/- was transferred in his account as a loan and this shows the difference of Rs. 82,659/-.
13. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that the complainant took a loan facility of Rs. 30,36,679/- on 31.12.2014 and at the time of taking the loan all the terms and conditions were explained and after accepting the same the complainant signed the loan agreement Ex.OP-2. The learned counsel further contended that the opposite party has not charged any hidden charges. As per the request of the complainant opposite party settled his loan account and issued prepayment letter dated 14.7.2016 to deposit the full and final settlement amount. Moreover, at the request of the complainant the benefit of waiver was also given and after issuance of the prepayment letter the complainant made payment and the opposite party never charged any excess amount.
14. It is relevant to refer the loan agreement Ex.OP-2 wherein particulars of the loan facility has been mentioned including rate of interest which was floating and other charges are mentioned in Clause-14 i.e application fee, processing fee etc. Apart from the agreement the opposite party has also placed on record detailed statement of account from 30.12.2014 to 23.2.2017 Ex.OP-4 wherein on 19.1.2015 amount disbursed is shown as Rs. 30,36,679/-. On the same date i.e 19.1.2015 the opposite party has shown the processing fee, stamp duty and other charges. Perusal of the statement further shows that on 31.7.2016 the amount payable shown to be Nil. The statement further shows that all the installments shown to be received by the opposite party. In fact the complainant has the grievances of charging processing fee to the tune of Rs. 34,120/- which was 1% of the loan amount as mentioned in the agreement. Again an amount of Rs. 36,679/- as mentioned in the statement of account Ex.OP-4 debited to the account of the complainant has been assailed by the complainant which is the insurance charges. As per loan agreement it is the duty of the borrower to pay such costs and charges and it is clearly mentioned in the agreement which has been duly signed by both the parties. Moreover, the complainant has not led any evidence to show that the charges and the costs to the tune of Rs. 82,659/- as mentioned in the statement of account Ex.OP-4 were against the terms and conditions of the agreement and the opposite party debited the said amount illegally. Perusal of the statement Ex.OP-4 clearly indicates the various charges which they have debited to the account of the complainant under the various heads. Since the onus to rebut the said entries was upon the complainant and the complainant has miserably failed to rebut the same. Therefore it cannot be held that the charges to the tune of Rs. 82,659/- are illegal and unjustified. Hence, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is dismissed. No order as to costs or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
17th Day of August 2017
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)
Member
