DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this 19th day of December 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
Date of filing: 14.03.2022
CC/46/2022
Rafeeq Ali, S/o Mammu
Pallath House, Maruthur P.O
Pattambi Taluk
Palakkad – 679 306 - Complainant
(Party in person)
Vs
M/s BRD Securities Ltd.
Regd. Office at Bethany Complex
Thrissur Road
Kunnamkulam - Opposite party
(Ex-parte)
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty, N.K, Member
- The Complainant availed a personal loan of Rs.53000/- from the opposite party on 30/01/2020. On the same day another loan on the pledge of gold for Rs.166800/- was availed in the name of his wife, Smt. Rajeena. From the personal loan amount of Rs. 50000/- the opposite party had deducted Rs. 5652/- towards two monthly installments at the time of disbursement. Subsequently he had paid Rs. 3826/- to the personal loan and Rs. 7002/- to the gold loan account in the name of his wife.
Due to Covid, his business activities were affected and hence he couldn’t make further repayment to the loan accounts. His allegation is that the opposite party is charging very high rate of interest and denied any interest concession inspite of his request. The opposite party is harassing him by sending legal notices, threatening of further recovery action. He is also afraid that the opposite party would attach his house property. Hence, the complaint.
- Notice was issued to the opposite party. They didn’t enter appearance and hence were set ex-parte.
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents as Ext. A-1 & A-2. Both are the legal notices issued by the opposite party demanding repayment of the loans mentioned in the complaint.
4. The evidences adduced are the legal notices issued by the opposite party asking for repaying the loans, which is a routine and normal action taken by any lender in case of default in repayment. Sending notices and legal notices to any defaulter cannot be termed as deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Further, the complainant didn’t produce the copy of the loan agreements signed at the time of availing the loans or the loan sanction letter issued by the opposite party. He has also failed to file application seeking a direction for production of documents by the opposite party. Hence we are unable to examine whether the interest charged was exorbitant and in violation of the terms of the agreement.
5. Since the complainant failed to prove a prima-facie case against the opposite party, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 19th day of December, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K
Member
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the Complainant-
Ext.A-1: Legal notice dated 24/11/2021 issued by Advocate
Cijo.M.Cheruvathoor on behalf of opposite party.
Ext.A-2: Legal notice dated 18/01/2022 issued by Advocate Liji Jimmy on
behalf of the opposite party.
Documents marked from the side of opposite party- NIL
Witness examined – NIL
Cost- NIL
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they be weeded out.
