District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.8/21.
Date of Institution: 07.01.2021.
Date of Order: 16.09.2022.
Pradeep Sethi S/o late Shri jagdish Chander Sethi, R/O House No. 281, Sector-14, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. Hero Fin Corp Ltd., A-44, Mohan Corporate Industrial estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044 through its Managing Director/Manager.
2. M/s. Gaadi Web Pvt. Ltd., F-130, GF, Street No.7, Pandav Nagar Delhi, DL – 110091 in through its Managing Director/Manager.
…Opposite parties……
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. D.P.Gautam, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. L.S.Perswal, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Amit Sharma, counsel for opposite party No.2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a car for his personal use bearing registration NO. HR-51-BP-8311 make Honda Amez. The complainant had got it finance from the HDFC Bank, NH-5, NIT, Faridabad. The complainant had paid the instalments upto the month of October 2020 and he always paid the monthly instalment sin time and no instalment was due upon the complainant. The executive of opposite party No.1 approached the complainant and gave a proposal that they could refinance his vehicle and offered Rs. Seven lakhs loan on it. The complaint accepted their proposal and it was settled that the loan amount would be Rs.6,90,000/- and the rate of interest would be 12% p.a. After that the executive of opposite party No.1 again approached the complainant and got his signatures on some documents which were blank. The executive of opposite party No.1 again approached the complainant and got his signatures on some documents which were blank. The executive of opposite party No.1 were calling the sad documents a KIT. The front page of the said KIT was schedule A and the various column were made regarding details of the loan amount etc. The complainant had written the amount of loan as Rs.6,90,000/- and the rate of interest 12% and the number of monthly installment 36 and the amount of instalment Rs.22,918/- as it was agreed that the loan amount would be Rs.6,90,000/- for 36 months and the monthly installment would be Rs.22,918/- per month. After that on 20.11.2010 a message was received to the complainant form opposite party No.1 that the loan of the complainant had been sectioned. After that the complainant checked the Web Link given by opposite party No.1 where the complainant found that the opposite party No.1 had sanctioned loan of Rs.714070/- @ 16.01% interest for 48 months and the EMI was fixed at Rs.20241/- per month. However, the complainant was never agreed on such rate of interest and the number of EMI as mentioned by opposite party No.1 in his aforesaid documents. After that the complainant sent an email dated 20.11.2020 i.e on the same day to opposite party No1 and reminded them with the fact that the complainant had agreed on the loan amount of Rs.6,90,000/- and for EMI of Rs.22918/- for 36 months and the interest rate was settled @ 12%. Besides this the opposite party No.1 was also agreed that in case the complainant repaid the loan amount within six months then there would be no prepaid charges. After that the opposite party did not give any reply then the complainant visited the office of opposite party No.1 on 23.11.2020 and lodges his complaint with the opposite party No.1 but the executive of the opposite party No.1 did not give any response. On this the complainant sent another email and told that as they had not respond about the previous email of the complainant, hence he had stopped the ECS in his bank. After that on 27.11.2020 the complainant again sent an email to opposite party No.1 by which the complainant requested opposite party No.1 not to release the loan amount till the matter was sort out. However Rs.518827/- were reflected in the account of the complainant deposited by opposite party No.2. On this, the complainant collected the information about the said entry and whereabout of the opposite party No.2 and after that on 7.12.2020 the complainant enquired about the matter through email form opposite party No.2 about the entry that how the said amount were deposited by them in his account. On this the opposite party No.2 told that they had paid the said amount on account of the loan amount sanction by opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 sent the details of the loan vide letter dated 1.12.2020 sent through email. After that the opposite party No.1 filled up a blank cheque with the amount of Rs.20,241/- with the ulterior motive to extort the money from the complainant in an illegal manner as there was no such instalment. Opposite party No.1 presented the said cheque. However, the complainant had stopped the payment of said cheque. The complainant never agreed on the interest @ 16.01% per annum for 4 years i.e. for 48 installments. When the complainant came to know about this fact then he immediately refused to accept this transaction but the opposite party No.1 was adamant to recover the said loan amount with the interest @ 16.01% in 48 installments which was totally illegal and never accepted by the complainant. The complainant was still ready to pay the instalments of loan amount of Rs.6,90,000/- in case the interest was fixed @ 12% p.a. and for 36 months as per settlement taken place between the complainant and the opposite parties. The opposite parties had agreed to sanction a sum of Rs.6,90,000/- on account of loan amount to the complainant but they had paid Rs.1,13,248/- to the HDFC Bank and Rs.5,18,827/- directly to the complainant i.e. Rs.6,32,075/- only and failed to release the balance loan amount of Rs.57,925/-. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) not to charge the interest @ 16.01 % on the sanctioned loan amount form the complainant and not to recover the loan amount in 48 monthly installment of Rs.20241/- and to charge the rate of interest @ 12% p.a. payable in 36 monthly installments of Rs.22,918/- and to pay the balance amount of Rs.57925/- to the complainant and not to take the possession of the vehicle in question.
b) damage of Rs.5,00,000/- may also be imposed on the opposite parties.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the present complaint was not maintainable in view of doctrine of natural justice that “No one can take advantage of his own wrong” since the complainant himself was blameworthy for not paying the due EMI of the vehicle loan taken by him from the answering opposite party on time and miserably defaulted therein as well as did not sent any prior intimation to the answering opposite party No.1 for derring payment of auto debit instruction of pre authorized ECS. Therefore, the complainant had violated the mandatory terms of the loan agreement executed between the complainant and answering opposite parties which was a binding contract between the parties. It was submitted that the complainant himself was blameworthy for not paying the due EMI of the vehicle loan taken by him to the answering opposite party on time and miserably defaulted therein as well as did not sent any prior intimation to the answering opposite party No.1 for deferring payment of auto debit instruction of pre authorized ECS. Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant had concealed the true and correct facts and circumstances before this Hon’ble Forum and had hence mislef this Hon’ble Forum The complainant had availed the loan facility form opposite party No.1 and the hypothecation of opposite party No.1 had also been endorsed on the registration certificate of the vehicle on 15.12.220 by the concerned Regional Transport Authority and the complainant should have objected to getting the hypothecation endorsed on the registration certificate of the vehicle and were hence the complainant stopped from filing a complainant or continuing the same against the opposite parties for the said actions. The answering opposite party submitted that the loan application of the complainant was forwarded to the answering opposite party by the Dealer DSA Sethi Motors & Finance SEthi Motors & Fiancée and the case was further directed to opposite party No.1 as they were duly licensed non banking finance company and regulated by the Reserve bank of India. The answering opposite party was merely a Direct Sales Agent (DSA) of various banks and NBFCs including opposite party No.1 whose role was limited to sourcing the loan application and submit the same to the concerned bank/NBFC. Thereafter, the bank/NBFC scrutinizes the said loan application and the documents in order to determine, whether the loan/refinance facility could be sanctioned or not to the prospective customer(s) depending on their profile documents submitted by them and their creditworthiness. The interest to be levied upon, tenure of loan, the quantum of the loan amount, EMIS was decided solely by opposite party NO.1 and the answering opposite party had absolutely no role or control over the same. The finance documents were received by the dealer and the same was forwarded to opposite party No.1 for their approval. Once the case was approved by opposite party No.1 the money was disbursed through opposite party No.2 on the instructions of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No. 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– M/s. Hero Fincorp Ltd.& Anr. with the prayer to: a) not to charge the interest @ 16.01 % on the sanctioned loan amount form the complainant and not to recover the loan amount in 48 monthly installment of Rs.20241/- and to charge the rate of interest @ 12% p.a. payable in 36 monthly installments of Rs.22,918/- and to pay the balance amount of Rs.57925/- to the complainant and not to take the possession of the vehicle in question. b) damage of Rs.5,00,000/- may also be imposed on the opposite parties.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Sri Pradeep Sethi,, Ex.C-1 - Schedule A forms an inagral part of the loan sum agreement to hypothecate , Ex.C2 – photocopies of cheques, Ex. C-3 to 6- emails, Ex.C7 - letter dated 12.01.2020 regarding used car loan account No.FARRUC00100005987448, Ex.C-8 – Schedule 1,, Ex.C-9 - Annexure – Charge Schedule, Ex.C-10 to 19 emails.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of shri Paras Gupta, Associate Collection Legal of Hero Fincorp Ltd. , Office at 9, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi,, Ex.R-1 – Loan cum agreement to hypothecate, Ex.R-2 – Schedule –A, Ex.R-3 – Schedule B Disbursement Request Form,, Ex.R-4 – Demand Promissory Note,, Ex.R-5 - Sanction letter, Ex.R-6 – account statement.
As per evidence of opposite party No.2 Ex,RW-2/a – affidavit of Shri Prashant Singh Chauhan, Sr. Associate Director – Collections with Gaddi Web Pvt. Ltd. Having its office at Emmar Digi Green 11th floor, Tower B, Sector-61, Gurgaon, Haryana,
7. The complainant filed the complaint with the prayer not to charge the interest @ 16.01 % on the sanctioned loan amount from the complainant and not to recover the loan amount in 48 monthly installment of Rs.20241/- and to charge the rate of interest @ 12% p.a. payable in 36 monthly installments of Rs.22,918/- and to pay the balance amount of Rs.57925/- to the complainant and not to take the possession of the vehicle in question.
8. It is evident from Schedule A vide Ex.C-1 in which various column were made regarding details of the loan amount etc. The complainant has written the amount of loan as Rs.6,90,000/- and the rate of interest 12% and number of monthly instalments 36 and the amount of instalment Rs.22918/- .as it was agreed that the loan amount would be Rs.6,90,000/- for 36 months and the monthly instalment would be Rs.22,918/- per month.
9. During the course of arguments Shri Prashant Singh Chauhan, Senior Associate Director on behalf of opposite party No.2 has made a statement that “Opposite party No.1 sanctioned the loan amount Rs.7,14,070/- after deduction of Rs.24,000/- (in processing of loan charges and RC transfer and Hypothication charges) and Rs.1,13,248/- HDFC loan closed by opposite party No.2 and Rs.5,18,827/- credited to the complainant account and the remaining balance of Rs.57,925/- are with opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 is ready to credit the said amount to the account of the complainant.
10. After going through the evidence led by the parties as well the statement of Shri Prashant Singh Chauhan, Senior Associate Director of opposite party No.2, the Commission is of the opinion that as per Ex.C1 it is proved that the loan was sanctioned with the rate of interest 12% and 36 monthly instalments as per agreement. Hence, the complaint is disposed off with the direction to opposite parties to adjust the balance payment after taking processing of loan charges and RC transfer and Hypothecation charges. Opposite parties are also directed to give the RC to the complainant for his livelihood. Opposite parties will not snatch the vehicle in question, subject to regular payment of EMI. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 16.09.2022 (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.
