Delhi

North East

CC/120/2021

Mr. Rajesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Hero Fincorp Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.120/21

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, S/o Sh. Rahunath Singh, R/o A-49, Gali No. 13, Dayalpur, Delhi 110094	Complainant
	Versus
	M/s Hero Fincorp Limited, Through its Director/AR At: 9, Community Centre, Near Holy Angels Hospital, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar New Delhi 110057	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                   DATE OF ORDER:

10.09.2021 17.07.2023 28.08.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

                                                              ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the    Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant approached the Opposite Party for taking a loan of Rs. 5 lacs for the purpose of repairing of his house and the Opposite Party was agreed to provide the loan in the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Complainant stated that the loan was to be repaid by him along with 11 % interest p.a. in 60 equal instalments. At the time of taking the loan, the Opposite Party taken the signatures of the Complainant on various blank papers, printed forms and also taken five blank signed security cheques from the Complainant on pretext of loan formalities and the Opposite Party disclosed the rate of interest was 11 % p.a.. Complainant stated that when after disbursal of the loan the Complainant shocked to know that the Opposite Party charged the rate of interest at the tune of 13.15 % which is very higher. Complainant further stated tht the Opposite Party without the consent of the Complainant got done the insurance of the Complainant and even they had intentionally and deliberately converted the total loan amount to R. 5,28,266/- instead of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Complainant got only disbursal amount of Rs. 4,76,788/- in his account. It is his case that in the month of April 2021 when the Complainant got done entry of his passbook from his bank then he came to know that the Opposite Party through their representative got withdrawn Rs. 40,000/- from the account of the Complainant by way of illegally presenting one of the said five security cheques, which was taken by the Opposite Party as blank signed from the Complainant. It is his case that on 10.05.2021 Complainant sent an email to the Opposite Party seeking response about the withdrawal amount of Rs. 40,000/-. Complainant on various occasions approached to the Opposite Party and asked the reason about the illegal act but all went in vain.  Hence, there is a deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to refund all the amount withdrawn and deducted amount i.e. Rs. 51,474/- (loan deficiency amount) and Rs. 40,000/- (cheque amount), Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 25,000/- on account of litigation expenses.  
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 07.04.2022.

Ex-parte evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Complainant. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant.  The case of the Complainant is that he applied for a loan of Rs. 5 lacs for the purpose of repairing of his house from the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party was agreed to provide the loan in the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest  11 % p.a. in 60 equal instalments. At the time of taking the loan, the Opposite Party taken the signatures of the Complainant on various blank papers, printed forms and also taken five blank signed security cheques from the Complainant on pretext of loan formalities. As per the case of the Complainant after disbursal of the loan the Complainant shocked to know that the Opposite Party charged the rate of interest at the tune of 13.15 % which is very higher. It is further stated by the Complainant that the Opposite Party without the consent of the Complainant got done the insurance of the Complainant and even they had intentionally and deliberately converted the total loan amount to R. 5,28,266/- instead of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is further stated by the Complainant that in the month of April 2021 Opposite Party withdraw Rs. 40,000/- from the account of the Complainant by way of illegally presenting one of the said five security cheques and Complainant sent an email to the Opposite Party seeking response about the withdrawal amount of Rs. 40,000/- on various occasions to which he did not receive any reply form the Opposite Party. Hence, there is a deficiency on the part of Opposite Party.
5. Complainant did not lead any evidence regarding sanctioning of loan with 11 % interest and also date of sanctioning of the loan and date of final repayment of the loan. It is not clear from the record of the case whether the Complainant had paid loan amount to the Opposite Party in full. Documents produce by the Complainant is clearly stated that rate of interest will be 13.15 % and final loan amount will be Rs. 5,28,266/-. It also shows that insurance premium to be paid by the Complainant for securing the loan.
6. In view of the above facts, in our considered opinion, Complainant failed to make any case about the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
7. Order announced on 28.08.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President