Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/255/2022

E. Gopi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Jana Small Finance Bank and another - Opp.Party(s)

T.R. Kumaravel

19 Apr 2023

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 23.06.2022

Date of Reservation      : 10.04.2023

Date of Order               : 19.04.2023

 

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                             : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,             :  MEMBER  I 

                    THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,      : MEMBER II

               

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.255/2022

WEDNESDAY, THE 19th DAY OF APRIL 2023

 

Mr. E.Gopi,

S/o. Mr. Eswaran (Late),

No.19, M.G.R. Nagar,

5th Main Road,

1st Cross Street,

Velacherry,

Chennai 600 042.                                                           …Complainant.

..Vs..

1. The Manager,

    M/s.Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.,

    Regional Office,

    First Floor, 28/36, South West Boag Road,

    T.Nagar,Chennai 600 017.

 

2. The Manager,

    M/s. Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd., 

    Door No.44, New No.38,

    Venkatakrishna Iyer Road,   

    Mandaveli,

    Chennai 600 028.                                            .. Opposite Parties.

 

                                                               

* * * * *

Counsel for the Complainant      : T.R.Kumaravel&T.R.Anand, Advs

 

Counsel for Opposite Parties     :  Mr.V.Balasubramani& V.Vadivelan,    

                                                        Advs.,

  On perusal of records and upon hearing the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

(i) The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.65,303/- deducted by the Opposite Party for unknown reasons and to pay a sum of Rs.6,30,000/- for the deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- for the Unfair Trade Practice and to pay a sum of Rs.5,75,000/- for the mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- for the cost of the Complainant.

I.  The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

1. The Complainant submitted that the  Complainant got Rs.24,45,926/- as loan from the 2nd Opposite Party on 30.7.2019 against his property and the Complainant registered the schedule mentioned property through Deposit of Title Deed, Document No.4844/2019,Dated3.8.2019, in SRO, Virugambakkam. The EMI for the loan availed by the Complainant is Rs.37,643/- per month for the period of 180 months. Loan Account No.45959430000318.

2. The Complainant further submitted that from August 2019 to March 2020 the Complainant paid the EMI properly without any default. During the corona pandemic period the Complainant was not able to pay EMI’s properly so the Complainant gave moratorium request to the 2nd Opposite Party and the same was accepted by the 2nd Opposite Party. Thereafter the  Complainant paid the EMI’s for the month of March 2020, June 2020, September 2020 and October 2020 to April 2021 the Complainant paid the EMI properly, thereafter the EMI was not paid by the Complainant for the month of May 2021 and June 2021 due to some financial constraints.  In this situation the Opposite Party approached the Complainant and informed him that top up loan has been sanctioned to the Complainant and he can avail that  loan  settle the balance previous EMI’s of the above said loan.

3.     The Complainant also accepted for the same and got the top up loan from the 2nd Opposite Party on 9.7.2021. In the sanctioned top up loan amount of Rs.4,85,790/-, the 2nd Opposite Party have deducted a sum Rs.4,10,504/- and the 2nd Opposite Party gave only Rs.75,286/- to the Complainant.  The 2nd Opposite Party have credited this amount to the Complainant’s Jana  Small Finance Bank Ltd., S.B. Account and again the Complainant registered the schedule mentioned property through Deposit of Title Deed, in Document No.4714/2021, Dated 16.8.2021, in SRO, Virugambakkam, for  the enhancement of top up loan amount.

4.     The Complainant further submitted that the Opposite Party had deducted a sum of Rs.65,303/- for unknown reasons. Neither the details were provided by the Opposite Party nor refunded the amount till date even after several requests of the Complainant.

5.   The Complainant further submitted that the Complainant had already paid EMI's in advance till the month of December 2021 (for six months) and the Complainant do not have any EMI dues to be paid to the 2nd Opposite Party. In this situation the1st and 2nd Opposite Party have given an advertisement on 31-07-2021 in Dinakaran Tamil Daily News Paper mentioning that the Complainant to pay entire outstanding amount for the above said loan within 60 days.

6.     On seeing the above said notice the Complainant was in great shock and surprise and contacted the Opposite Party through phone and in person but there is no proper response from the Opposite Party. Due to this Complainant was in great mental agony. The Complainant is working in cine industry as assistant choreographer and actor. The Complainant is very famous in his surroundings (Locality) and in cine industry and he is well known to the public and he is having many friends near his house and cine industry. Once the above said paper publication was issued all of his relatives, friends and neighbours also saw this advertisement and they were in great shock and surprise and contacted the Complainant through phone and in person to enquire about this paper publication. Due to this the Complainant and his family lost the respect and reputation both in cine industry and among relatives, friends and neighbours. As the Complainant lost his reputation in cine industry he did not get proper job due to this the Complainant faced the financial crisis and unable to run the family and also not able to meet the medical expenses and special education of his autism son.

7.     The Complainant submitted that this clearly shows the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice  of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant sent a Legal notice on 23.08.2021 to the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties The 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties  received the above said Legal notice and the reply notice was received from  the 1st Opposite Party on 09.09.2021.

8.     The Complainant further submitted that in this situation the Complainant got the letter total outstanding loan amount in the two loans from the 2nd Opposite Party. The Complainant paid the entire two loan amount to the 2nd Opposite Party on 16.02.2022 and received the no due certificate from the 2nd Opposite Party on 23.02.2022 and cancelled the two Deposit of Title Deed on 09.03.2022, Doc. No.1781/2022, S. R. O. Virugambakkam, Chennai. Due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the Opposite Party the Complainants is in great loss and suffering from great mental agony. Hence the complaint.

II. Written version of Opposite Parties in brief is as follows:

9.     The Opposite Parties submitted that during the course of their business, the Complainant approached for seeking financial assistance and represented that he is having sufficient means to repay the loan amount, and agreed to mortgage the property to secure the proposed loan facility. They accepted the request of the Complainant and sanctioned an amount of Rs. 24,45,926/ - to him, as such the Complainant had executed a Loan Agreement and other documents bearing No.45959430000318, accepting terms and conditions thereon. As per said loan agreement the Complainant has to repay the loan amount in 180 monthly instalments, each of Rs. 37,643/- commencing from 10.09.2019. To secure the said loan facility, the Complainant had created charge by depositing document and the same was registered as document No. 4844/2019 Dated 03.08.2019 over the property situated at Plot No. 59, Door No.53/31, 3rd Street, New Vijayaraghavapuram Planning Scheme, Chennai-600 093, comprised in Old S.No. 211 Per, T.S. No. 8 Part, Block  No.45 situated at Saligramam Vilage. Mambalam " Taluk, Chennai Districtmeasuring 53.505 sq,mtr., together with residential house building.

10.    The Complainant had failed to pay the EMI properly and paid some instalments, that too belatedly. Since the default continued by the Complainant despite repeated reminders, the opposite parties left with no other options had declared his loan amount as Non- Performing Assets on 30.06.2021.

11.    The Opposite Parties further submitted that the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties and admitted his default in paying the instalments and requested to sanction additional loan to pay the instalments arrears. The Opposite Parties further submitted that to maintain good relationship with the Complainant, the Opposite Parties had sanctioned and disbursed the additional loan amount of Rs. 4,85,790/- on 09.07.2021 vide Loan No. 45959680000060 and the same was secured by registering deed of
mortgage dated 16.08.2021, Document No.4714/2021. The Opposite
parties further submitted that as requested by the Complainant, a sum of Rs.4,10,504/- was deducted towards the payment of outstanding dues and for other out standings and a sum of Rs.75,286 was credited into his
bank account.

12.    The Opposite Parties further submitted that, since the default
continued by the Complainant despite repeated reminders, the opposite
parties left with no other option has declared the loan account as Non-performing Asset as on 30.06.2021 itself, but the Complainant subsequently approached and availed additional finance facilities only on 09.07.2021 and consented to adjust the amount outstanding payable by him. The Opposite Parties further submitted that since the Complainant admittedly paid the amount outstanding only in the month of July, 2021 but the Opposite Parties had declared his loan amount as Non-Performing Assets in the month of June, 2021.

13.    Due to their default in payment instalments the penal charges and other additional financial charges were accumulated into his loan account. The Opposite Parties further submit that since the default continued and failed to regularise the same, they left with no other option: steps were taken under SARFAESI Act and issued notice under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act on 31.07.2021.

14.    The Opposite Parties submitted that the Complainant had sent a legal
notice dated on 23.08.2021 with false averments, the Opposite Parties also replied to the said notice by their reply notice dated on 09.09.2021. After such initiation of SARFAESI proceedings, the Complainant paid the entire loan pending amount and received the No Due Certificates on 23.02.2022 and hence the Opposite Parties cancelled the two Deposit of Title deeds on 09.03.2022 by Document No. 1781 /2022. Hence the act of the Opposite Parties does not fall under the purview of deficiency of service. Hence prayed that to dismiss the complaint filed by the Complainant.

III.   The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit,  in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A14. The Opposite Parties have submitted their proof affidavit, Ex.B1 to B8 documents were marked on their side. Both side written arguments  filed.

IV.  Points for Consideration:-

  1.    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the

part of the Opposite Parties?

 

  1.    Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs

    sought for?

 

3.     To what other relief,  the Complainant is entitled to?

POINT NO. 1 :-

15.    The undisputed fact of that  the Complainant had availed loan for a sum of Rs.24,45,926/- by executing a loan agreement bearing No.45959430000318 with the Opposite Parties,  agreeing to repay the loan amount in 180  Equated Monthly installments for Rs.37,643/- commencing from  10.9.2019.   It is also not in dispute that in order to secure the loan facility  the Complainant  had  mortgaged  the property situated at  Plot No.55, Door No.56/31, 3rd Street, New VijayaRaghavapuram planning Scheme, Chennai 600 093, comprised in old Survey No.211 part, P.S.No.8 part, Block No.45, at Saligrammam Village, Mambalam Taluk, Chennai District measuring an extent of 63.505 sq.mt together with  residential house building,  by deposit of title deeds  in respect of the above property registered as Doc.No.4844 of 2019, dated 3.8.2019.   The dispute arose as to the  deductions for unknown reasons from the top up loan amount and on the paper advertisement given by the Opposite Parties under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act  mentioning the  outstanding amount payable by the Complainant.

16.    The contention of the Complainant is that  he got a sum of Rs.24,45,926/- as loan from the 2nd Opposite Party on 30.7.2019,  against his property through deposit of title deed bearing Doc No.4844/2019,  dated 3.8.2019 in SRO Virugambakkam.   He had been regular in payment of EMI from August  2019 to March 2020 without any default.   During the  Corona pandemic,  the Complainant was not able to pay the EMI and hence sought for moratorium  which the 2nd Opposite Party accepted .  Further submitted that he paid EMIs for the month of March, June, September and October 2020 to April 2021.  Thereafter he did not pay installment for the month of May 2021 and June 2021.    Hence the Complainant had availed top up loan from the 2nd Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.4,85,790/- on 9.7.2021.   After all deductions from the top up loan availed a sum of Rs.75,286/- was credited to the account of the Complainant.   The Opposite Party had deducted a sum of Rs.65,303/- for  unknown reasons.   Further submitted that  the Complainant had already paid EMIs in advance  till the month of December 2021.  But the Opposite Parties have given an advertisement on 31.7.2021, in Dinakaran Tamil Daily News Paper mentioning that the Complainant had to pay the entire outstanding amount within 60 days, which has caused  great mental agony to the Complainant and that  he being a  very famous personality in his locality was put to shame and he had lost his respect and reputation. 

17.    The Opposite Parties submitted that  they have sanctioned a sum of Rs.24,45,926/- to the Complainant,  who after accepting the terms and conditions had executed loan agreement No.45959430000318, agreeing to repay the loan amounts in 180 monthly installments  of Rs.37643/- each from 10.9.2019 without any default and had secured the loan facility by depositing title deed of the aforesaid property and the same was registered as Doc. No.4844/2019, dated 3.8.2019. Further, submitted that the Complainant had failed to make the EMI properly. Since the default continued the Opposite Parties left with no other options had declared the loan account of the Complainant as non-performing asset on 30.6.2021.  Further submitted that in order to maintain good relationship of the Complainant, the opposite  party had sanctioned additional loan amount of Rs.4,85,790/- on  9.7.2021 vide loan agreement No. 45959680000060 and the same was secured by registered deed of mortgage dated 16.8.2021, in Doc No.4714/2021.  A sum of Rs.4,10,504/- was deducted towards payment of outstanding dues and a sum of Rs.75,285/- was credited  in to the Bank account of the Complainant.  Further submitted that since the default continued and failed to regularize the same, they had taken steps under the  SARFEASI Act and issued notice under Section 13(2) of SARFEASI Act on 31.7.2021. 

18.    The contention of the Opposite Party that as the Complainant committed default, they had declared his loan account as non-performing asset on 30.6.2021 itself and that  the additional finance facility was availed only on 9.7.2021 and paid the amount outstanding in the month of July 2021 and hence steps were taken under Section 13(2) of the SARFEASI Act  cannot be accepted, as the Opposite Party had the knowledge that  as on 9.7.2021, the Complainant  had cleared  the dues payable by the Complainant and  claiming that  the  clearance of total outstanding dues would not cancel the declaration of its loan as non-performing assets is not acceptable. After having knowledge that the Complainant had cleared the outstanding due as on 09.07.2021 and that the balance amount of Rs.75,285/- was credited to the account of the Complainant the Opposite Party had issued notice under the SARFAESI Act which is untenable. Moreover the paper advertisement given by the Opposite Party on 31.07.2021 by showing the Complainant as a defaulter and mentioning the details of his Mortgaged Property when the Complainant had no EMI dues as on that date, would have definitely made the Complainant to shun from his family, friends and business circle causing great mental agony to the Complainant.

19.    It is also pertinent to note that the Complainant had paid that entire dues of the loan amount to the 2nd Opposite Party on 16.2.2022 as per Ex.A11 & A12 and had obtained a  No due certificate from the Opposite Parties on 23.2.2022 as admitted by the Opposite Party.

20.  From the foregoing discussions, this Commission is of the considered view that the act of the Opposite Parties in making paper advertisement on  31.7.2021 after receipt of outstanding EMI dues as on that date from the Complainant and claiming that the payment of outstanding dues would not absolve the opposite  parties from declaring the loan account of the Complainant as non-performing asset is arbitrary when the fact remains that the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.4,10,508/- towards  outstanding dues as on 09.07.2021 and that the balance of Rs.75,286/- was credited into the account of the Complainant, which is also admitted by the Opposite Parties, and showing the Complainant as a defaulter with description of his  property as Mortgaged to the Opposite Party thereby causing mental agony to the Complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainant.       

POINT NOS 2 &3:-

21.    As discussed and decided in point NO.1, the Opposite Parties  1& 2 are liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards deficiency in service caused to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties along with a sum of Rs.5000/- towards costs.   Accordingly these points are answered.

     In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only)  towards compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony, pain and sufferings caused by the Opposite Parties along with a sum of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards cost of this litigation to the Complainant within 8 weeks from the  date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- shall carry interest @9% p.a from the date of the order till the date of realization.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 19th of April 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                           MEMBER I                       PRESIDENT

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1

23.08.2018

Xerox copy of partition deed , D.No.6344/2018.

Ex.A2

03.08.2019

Xerox copy of Deposit of Title deed, Doc.No.4844/2019, Rs.24,45,926/-.

Ex.A3

16.08.2021

Xerox copy of Deposit of Title deed, Doc.No.4714/2019,  (Top up loan) Rs.4,85,790/-.

Ex.A4

     

Xerox copy of Statement – Rs.24,45,926/- is No outstanding due letter.

Ex.A5

      

Xerox copy of Statement – Rs.4,85,790/- is No outstanding due letter.

Ex.A6

16.12.2021

Xerox copy of  Opposite Parties 1 & 2 SMS

Ex.A7

22.12.2021

Xerox copy of  Opposite Parties 1 & 2 SMS

Ex.A8

31.07.2021

Xerox copy of  paper publication.

Ex.A9

23.08.2021

Office copy of legal notice issued by the Complainant’s counsel

Ex.A10

09.09.2021

Xerox copy of reply notice issued by the Opposite Parties’ counsel

Ex.A11

15.02.2021

Xerox copy of Statement letter-Loan outstanding letter.

Ex.A12

16.02.2022

Xerox copy of payment challan

Ex.A13

  

Xerox copy of the Complainant’s bank statement.

Ex.A14

09.03.2022

Xerox copy of receipt.

 

* * * * *

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

Ex.B1

     

Xerox copy of  Statement of Account (SOA) for a loan amount of Rs.24,45,926/-.

Ex.B2

     

Xerox copy of  Statement of Account (SOA) for a loan amount of Rs.4,85,790/-.

Ex.B3

23.08.2021

 

 

Xerox copy of  legal notice sent by the Complainant.

Ex.B4

09.09.2021

Xerox copy of reply notice sent by the Opposite Parties.

Ex.B5

31.07.2021

Xerox copy of paper publication.

Ex.B6

08.02.2022

Xerox copy of letter requesting out standing statement.

Ex.B7

09.03.2022

Xerox copy of receipt of discharging the  Deposit of Title deeds

Ex.B8

09.07.2021

Xerox copy of letter of Authorisation.

 

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR               B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                                MEMBER I                     PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.