District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 350/2022.
Date of Institution:04.07.2022.
Date of Order:27.03.2023.
Mrs. Savita aged about 30 years wife of late Shri Soran Lal, resident of 390, Bapu colony, Mathura Road, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. Aadhar card No. 9374 6924 7649.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
M/s. HDB Financial Services, Neelam Bata Road, NIT, Faridabad, through its Branch Manager/Principal Officer.
…Opposite party
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Ramesh Goel , counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Yashpal Yadav , counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that late Shri Soran Lal son of Shri Ram Sahay was the husband of the complainant. During his life time, said Shri Soran Lal got financed one tractor make Eicher 333 having its Chasis No. 928414155383 Engine No. S324-F02642 having its registration NO. HR-29-AU-6322 with the opposite party vide loan account No. 9018604 of Rs.3,56,086/- on 30.09.2019 from Faridabad office of the opposite party. At the time of sanctioning the said loan, there was an agreement which was duly executed between the husband of the complainant and the opposite party on the same day. As per terms and conditions mentioned in the said agreement, the above said loan amount was to be repaid by the husband of complainant alongwith interest in 34 equal monthly instalment of Rs.13,400/-. The first instalment was to be given on 4th November 2019 subject to rate of interest. The above said tractor was duly purchased and got financed by the deceased husband of the complainant, with the opposite party, for his livelihood. After taking the above said loan amount, the husband of the complainant made the repayment of the above said loan amount from time to time without any break and the last instalment was to be given on or before June 2022 as per the repayment schedule of the opposite party. Accordingly the husband of the complainant deposited the said instalment very much within time. Unfortunately the husband of the complainant namely Sh. Soran Lal expired on 4th January 2022, leaving behind the complainant as his widow and four minor children. During his life time, said Sh. Soran Lal made regular payment of monthly instalments to the opposite party from time to time. Even on 4th January 2022, the instalment was deducted from the bank account of deceased, Sh. Soran Lal, by the opposite party. After the death of Sh. Soran lal, an amount of Rs.1,00,225/- on account of insured amount, was released by the concerned insurance company and the said amount was directly received by the opposite party, by playing a fraud, for which the opposite party was not having any right to do so. After receiving the above said amount, the same was duly adjusted by the opposite party in the above noted loan account. The complainant being widow as well as being legal heir of the deceased Sh. Soran lal, obtained the copy of statement of account for the period from 01.01.2008 to 07.06.2022, in which they had showed the alleged outstanding amount of Rs.29,682/- as against the deceased. After going through the above noted statement of account as well as bank statement, the complainant became surprised because there were various monthly instalments which were duly paid by the deceased with the opposite party, had not been credited in the above said loan account. Whereas, after due calculation, there was an excess payment of rs.50,000/- approximately, which had already been paid by the deceased to the opposite party, after adjusting the insured amount of Rs.1,00,225/- as mentioned above. Thus it was clear that the opposite party had no any right to claim any amount from the complainant, in any manner whatsoever. The complainant asked the opposite party to issue NO Dues Certificate and original cheques, if any, which were given by deceased to the opposite party, at the time of getting financed the above said tractor, but it was the opposite party who stated the complainant to give excess money of Rs.29,682/- then they would return back the said original documents qua the tractor of the complainant. Besides this the opposite party had been making regular threats to the complainant, either to make the payment of above said amount in lump sum, otherwise they would snatch the tractor in question from the possession of the complainant, wrongly, illegally and unlawfully, for which the opposite party had no right to do so. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) issue No Dues Certificate in respect of above said loan account NO. 9018604 to the complainant, in respect of tractor make Eicher 333 having its chasis NO. 928414155383 having its registration NO. HR-29-AU-6322 alongwith NO objection certificate, immediately without any delay.
b) refund back the excess payment of Rs.50,000/- approximately, already received by the opposite party, on account of insured amount in lieu of death of Sh. Soran Lal, alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of its due till realization.
c) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
d) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that Sh. Soron Lal had taken the loan from the opposite party in the month and year of September, 2019. The loan amount was Rs.3,56,086/- which was repaid in 34 equitable monthly installments with agreed interest. Sh. Soran Lal had availed 2 months moratorium during the lockdown period. Loan tenure was completed on 04.08.2022 but due to availing the moratorium scheme, loan was extended upto 4.10.2022. It was further submitted that an amount of Rs.1,00,225/- was credited in the loan account of Sh. Soran Lal on 31.03.2022. The said amount was duly adjusted by the opposite party in the loan account of Shri Soran Lal. After adjustment of said amount, an amount of Rs.55,594/- was outstanding as on 31.08.2022. It was submitted that in terms of loan agreement, opposite party was entitled to receive the insurance amount. The opposite party was being filed the copy of statement with this reply and form the perusal of statement it become clear that who much installments were deposited by Sh. Soran Lal and after adjustment of Rs.1,00,225/-, how much amount was due in the loan account of sh. Soran Lal. The complainant had failed to annex bank account statement of Soran Lal which shows that the installment had been paid from the Soran Lal’s bank account but that instalment had not been reflected in the loan account statement of Sh. Soran Lal. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party–HDB Financial Services with the prayer to: a) issue No Dues Certificate in respect of above said loan account NO. 9018604 to the complainant, in respect of tractor make Eicher 333 having its chasis NO. 928414155383 having its registration NO. HR-29-AU-6322 alongwith NO objection certificate, immediately without any delay. b) refund back the excess payment of Rs.50,000/- approximately, already received by the opposite party, on account of insured amount in lieu of death of Sh. Soran Lal, alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of its due till realization. c) pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . d) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW!/A – affidavit of Savita, Ex.C-1 – RC, Ex.C-2 – Adhaar card, Ex.C-3 – Death certificate,, Ex.C-4 – statement of account, Ex.C-5 - bank statement, Ex.C-6 - insurance policy, Ex.C-7 – Adhaar card.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Baliram Dwivedi, Authorised Representative of M/s. HDB Financial Services, office at Neela Bata Road, NIT, Faridabad, Ex.R-1 – certificate,, Ex.R-2 – statement for the period 29.09.2019 to 07.09.2022.
6. During the course of argument, counsel for the complainant has filed calculation vide Annx. X which are as under:
1. | Total number of installment | 34 EMI |
2. | Timely payment of total installment | 28 EMI (upto January 2022) |
3. | Installment over due | 2 EMI (February & March |
4. | Total Principal amount due | Rs.12,050*2 = Rs.24,100/- |
5. | Bounce Charge | Rs.885*2 = Rs.1,770/- |
6. | Late payment charge | Rs.289 (Feb) & Rs.723(March) Total Rs.1,012/- |
7. | Total amount due on 31.03.2022 | Rs.24,100/- + Rs. 1,770/- + Rs. 1,012/- Rs.26,882/- |
8. | Bank received insurance amount on 31.03.2022 | Rs.1,00,225/- |
9. | After dedication balance advance amount | Rs. 1,00,225/- - Rs. 26,882/- Rs. 73,343/- |
10. | Total installment (amount) due after bank received insurance amount | Rs.12,050*4= Rs.48,200/- + Rs.8,853*1 = Rs. 8,853/- Total = Rs.57,053/- |
11. | My advance remaining amount | Rs.73,343/- - Rs.57,053/- Rs.16,290/- |
On the other hand, counsel for opposite party has filed calculation vide Annx. Y which are as under:
S.No. | Calculation sheet on behalf of HDB Financial Services Ltd. | | |
1. | Loan No. | 9018604 | |
2. | Amount financed | Rs.356086/- | |
3. | Amount repayable | Rs.4,56,682/- | |
4. | EMI start date | 04.11.2019 | |
5. | Loan tenure | 36 months | |
6. | Number of EMI/s paid by customer | 25 | |
7. | Amount paid by customer upto Jan. 2022 | Rs.3,12,895/- | |
8. | Date of death | 04.01.2022 | |
9. | | | |
10. | Claim received on 31.03.2022 | Rs.100225/- | |
11. | Adjustment in insurance amount on 18.04.2022 | Rs.38,150/- | (EMI – Rs.12,050/- x 3 for Feb. Mar. & Apr. 2022 = Rs.36,150/- + Rs.2000/- legal charges) |
12. | Balance left out of insurance amount | Rs.62,075/- | |
13. | Principal outstanding on 04.04.2023 | Rs.105671/- | |
14. | Amount adjusted in outstanding principal | Rs62,075/- | |
15. | Balance principal towards borrower excluding other charges | Rs.43,596/- | |
7. After going through the calculations filed by both the parties, there is a difference in column No.1 of the complainant and column No.5 of the opposite party. In column No.1 the total number of installment is 34 EMI. As per the calculation filed by opposite party vide Annx.Y the tenure of loan is 36 months. It means that there is difference of 2 EMIs. In the column NO.7 of the complainant and column NO.11 of the opposite party there is a difference of one EMI i.e worth Rs.12050/- (Rs.885 as bounce charges & Rs.289/- late fee) and also difference of Rs.2000/- legal charges in column NO.11 of the opposite party.
8. Keeping in view of the above calculations as well as the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The calculation filed by the complainant is different than the calculation filed by the opposite party. Hence, the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File
be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 27.03.2023. (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
