Date of Filing 27.11.2020

                                                                                                             Date of Disposal: 26.03.2024

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),                                          …….PRESIDENT

               THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL,                                                                                ……MEMBER-I

               THIUR.P.MURUGAN, M.Com, ICWA(Inter), BL.,                                                           ……MEMBER-II

RBT/CC.No.69/2024

THIS TUESDAY, THE 26^th DAY OF MARCH 2024

Mr.G.D.Gnanapalani, S/o.Gangadharan,

No.13-A, Nehru Street,

Tenpalani Nagar, Kolathur,

Chennai 600 099.                                                                                     ......Complainant.

                                                                                   //Vs//

1.M/s.Bajaj Finserv,

    Rep. by the Authorized Signatory,

   Registered Office at Mumbai,

   Pune Road, Akurdi, Pune -411 035, Maharastra State.

2.The Authorized Signatory,

    Bajaj Housing Finance Limited,

    Branch Office at

   1^st Floor, S.B.Complex, W115,

   3^rd Avenue, Anna Nagar,

   Opp. Kandasamy College, Chennai 600 040.

3.M/s.Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Company Limited,

    Head office: GE Plaza,

    Rep. by its Authority Signatory,

    Airport Road, Yerawada,

    Pune 411 006.                                                                                 ……Opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant                                : M/s.M.Saravana Kumar, Advocate.

Counsel for the 1^st opposite party                       : Exparte.

Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party                      : M/s.M.Arunachalam, Advocate.

Counsel for the 3^rd opposite party                       : M/s.S.Namasivayam, Advocate.

This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.47/2021 and transferred to this commission by the administrative order in RC.No.J1/3145/2023 dated 09.11.2023 of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as RBT/CC.No.69/2024 and this complaint coming before us finally on 11.03.2024 in the presence of M/s.M.Saravana Kumar, Advocate for the complainant  and M/s.M.Arunachalam, Advocate for the 2^nd opposite party and M/s.S.Namasivayam, Advocate for the 3^rd opposite party and 1^st opposite party was set exparte on 11.08.2022 for non appearance and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY Tmt. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in the matter of granting of loan and availing Insurance Policy along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to cancel the Group Insurance scheme policy as assured by them and to refund the deducted amount of Rs.1,15,525/- to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for deficiency in service, fraudulent activities and mental sufferings caused to the complainant and to pay  sum of Rs.3,00,000/-for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the  part of opposite parties and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards cost of litigation expenses.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. It was the case of the complainant that he had mortgaged the property which was situated at Flat No.153/14, 3^rd Floor, Chennai Flats, Padikuppam Road, Thirumangalam, Chennai 600 040 for meeting out of his business/family conditions to the City Bank.  City Bank had charged heavy rate of interest at 11.5% per annum for his loan amount.  Hence the complainant decided and finalized for changing the loan account for the sole reason that the rate of interest was low as compared with City Bank. The 2^nd opposite party company had sanctioned a loan of Rs.9,50,000/- on 30.11.2018 which was only 1/4^th amount promised by the 2^nd opposite party.  But the complainant had received Rs.8,40,460/-  remaining amount of Rs.1,09,540/- was deducted for purpose of compulsory insurance to the 2^nd opposite party company.  But it was not disclosed during the initial pre-sanctioning period.  Only after the disbursement of loan, the fact of compulsory insurance was known to the complainant.  The insurance bond was received on 30.11.2018 by the complainant.  On enquiry with regard to compulsory insurance, the 2^nd opposite party assured through email dated 03.01.2019 that with some necessary approval the insurance would be refunded. The 2^nd opposite party had falsely promised that the mandatory insurance issued would be cancelled and refunded.  Therefore both opposite parties had acted with deliberate intention of cheating. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed for the reliefs as mentioned above.

The crux of the defence put forth by the 2^nd opposite party:-

3. The 2^nd opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending inter alia that the complainant had approached the opposite party for availing financial assistance.  Based on their representations and assurances to pay all the instalments on time, opposite party agreed to grant financial facility as per the terms of the loan agreement executed between the opposite party and the complainant which was duly accepted by the complainant. A contract was duly executed between the complainant and the opposite party in which complainant had specifically agreed upon the “Insurance amount” in clause 7 of the sanction letter. Hence complainant could not go beyond the agreed terms of the agreement.  It was clarified that insurance was one of the component of aggregate borrowing facility availed by the complainant, where under, complainant has specifically agreed for the EMI and bifurcation of total loan facility availed by the complainant through written agreement. Complainant fails to explain as to what form of deficiency in service has been caused to the complainant as the loan has been sanctioned at the request of the complainant and the loan amount was requested by the complainant. Present matter was purely contractual and commercial in nature.  The complainant had taken loan from the 2^nd opposite party and as the relation between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party was that of debtor and creditor and not that of consumer and service provider and hence this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It was submitted that there was no promise regarding the sanction amount on the contrary it was very clear from the application form of the complainant which was duly filled by him that he had requested for Rs.15,00,000/-.  The 2^nd opposite party submits that the complainant had availed a takeover of the housing loan from them vide loan Account No.403HSL95912808 for Rs.6,50,000/- and a top-up loan for Rs.9,50,000/- vide loan Account No.403TSH95917845.  Hence, from the sanction letter and Statement of Account it was very clear that the disbursement was done in tune with the request raised by the complainant. Thus he sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

The crux of the defence put forth by the 3^rd opposite party:-

4. The 3^rd opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending inter alia that both the Policy Holder and the company are bound by the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy which was issued by the company based upon the proposal given by the policy holder. Complainant availed the said policy after agreeing to abide with the policy terms and conditions and as declared by him in the proposal form submitted to the respondent company for issue of the said policy. Further it was submitted that the complainant was well aware of the terms and conditions of the said policy and also well aware of the benefits which he was entitled to as described in the policy agreement. Complaint was barred by limitation and the same was not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Complainant G.D.Gnanapalani availed Group Credit Protection Plus with this opposite party through Master Policy Holder Bajaj Housing Finance Limited.  Complainant was provided with the option of 15 days free look period from the date of receipt of the policy as per the policy bond and in accordance to the provision of section 6(2) of the IRDA Act, 2002 to approach the Insurer for cancellation of the policy stating the reason, which the complainant has failed to do so. Opposite parties are bound to act as per the stipulations in the policy conditions and Insurance Laws. Thus he sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

5. On the side of the complainant proof affidavit was filed with documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex 35. The 2^nd opposite party filed proof affidavit with documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B10. The 3^rd opposite party filed proof affidavit with documents marked as Ex.B11 to Ex.B13. Though notice was served on the 1^st opposite party, he did not appear and hence he was called absent and set exparte on 11.08.2022 for non appearance and non filing of written version within the mandatory period as per the statue. 

Points for consideration:-

1)    Whether the allegations made by the complainant against the opposite parties in the matter of granting of loan and availing Insurance Policy amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and whether the same has been successfully proved by the complainant?

2)    If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?

 Point No.1:-

6. Heard the oral arguments, perused the pleadings, documents evidence and written arguments filed by the parties.

7. The crux of the oral arguments of the complainant is that on assurance by the 2^nd opposite party he availed a takeover loan from City Bank where he had earlier availed the mortgage loan.  His main grievances is that though the opposite parties issued a letter that the rate of interest would be 8.5% later on they granted loan for a high rate of interest and also that the assured sum was not sanctioned and also that he was cheated a sum of Rs.1,09,540/-paid towards insurance which he did not opt for. Thus, stating that the opposite parties had deceived him on false promise in the matter of sanctioning the loan amount, he had come with the present complaint.

8. On the other hand, 2^nd opposite party argued that the loan sanctioned was only for an amount of Rs.9,50,000/-and it depends upon discretion of the Bank.  Further it was argued by him that only upon the complainant agreeing for availing the insurance, the premium towards insurance was deducted from the total loan sanctioned amount.  He also referred to clause 7 of the sanction letter in support of his argument.  Further he also denied that it was not their officials or employees who approached the complainant with an offer for Rs.40,00,000/- loan with minimum interest rate.  It was only the complainant who requested only for Rs.15,00,000/- loan amount. It was also argued by him that the complainant after disbursement of the loan in 2018 had filed the present complaint in 2021 which is beyond the period of limitation and hence he sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

9. On appreciation of the entire pleadings and materials we found that the availment of loan by the complainant with the 2^nd opposite party was not disputed by any of the parties.  However, the complainant has come to this commission with 3 grievances;

1.     That against their promise a lesser amount was sanctioned by the 2^nd opposite party;

2.     The rate of interest promised was 8.5%.  However the loan was sanctioned for a higher rate of interest,

3.     Compulsory insurance was imposed upon him by the 2^nd opposite party without his knowledge.

All the above three mentioned grievances of the complainant relates to the loan agreement wherein the complainant had signed it after knowing very well about the terms and conditions.  Once the complainant signed the loan agreement and had availed the loan offered by the 2^nd opposite party he cannot thereafter question the same. Though allegations were raised by the complainant that the 2^nd opposite party’s officials promised him for a higher amount with a lesser rate of interest i.e. 8.5% no evidence was submitted by the complainant with regard to the same.  No particulars about the officials who contacted him either orally or in writing was produced by the complainant. In such circumstances we could not believe the version of the complainant that he was cheated by the opposite parties with some lucrative offers.

10. Further we could see that the complainant’s document Ex.A2 which was also filed the opposite parties, the Sanction Letter wherein under Loan Details it has been clearly mentioned that the Loan Amount Sanctioned was only Rs.9,50,000/- and under Additional Financial Products it has been clearly mentioned as Rs.1,00,000/- towards insurance premium.  This document was dated 30.11.2018 before disbursement of the loan amount by the opposite parties.  Ex.B3 the Sanction letter was also dated 25.11.2018 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the Insurance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was inclusive in the sanctioned amount limit. Therefore it is well established that the complainant was very well made known about the amount to be sanctioned, the rate of interest and about the insurance before the disbursement of the loan amount.  If at all he was aggrieved he ought to have conveyed his displeasure to the opposite parties and ought not to have availed the loan amount.   As per Ex.B10 it is seen that the sanctioned loan amount got credited only on 30.11.2018 at the first instance.  In the said circumstances having availed and utilized the loan amount as sanctioned by the 2^nd opposite party and as rightly pointed out after 3 years the complainant coming up with the above grievances could not be accepted. Resultantly we found no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Having accepted the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and signing the same without any protest and availing the loan, we hold that the complainant is bound by the terms and condition of the same which could not be challenged before this Commission.  If at all the complainant was aggrieved by the contractual terms and conditions he could approach the Civil Forum and produce sufficient evidence and contest the same. Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and as against the complainant.

Point No.2:-

11. As we have held above that the complainant had failed to prove that the opposite parties had committed any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, he is not entitled any relief from the opposite parties.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs. 

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 26^th day of March 2024.

       -Sd-                                                   -Sd-                                                           -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                        MEMBER-I                                              PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

            List of documents filed by the 2^nd opposite party:-

      List of documents filed by the 3^rd opposite party:-

       -Sd-                                                          -Sd-                                                   -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                              MEMBER-I                                      PRESIDENT