COMPLAINT FILED: 29.11.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 19th MARCH 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 2596/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Mr. G. Ramesh Babu,<br /> Residing at No. 14,<br /> 1st Floor, 15th Cross,<br /> Pipeline Road,<br /> Cholarapalya,<br /> Bangalore – 560 023.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (B.K. Manjunath)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. M/s. Cholamandalam Finance,<br /> Having office at No. 1003/25,<br /> 59th Cross, 4th ‘M’ Block,<br /> Rajajinagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 010.<br /> Represented by its <br /> Branch Manager,<br /> Mr. Prasanna Kumar.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. M/s. Cholamandalam Finance,<br /> 28/1, Kensington Road,<br /> M.G. Road, <br /> Opposite Gurudwar,<br /> Near Ulsoor Lake,<br /> Bangalore – 560 042.<br /> Represented by its<br /> Branch Manager.<br /> <br /> <br /> 3. Cholamandalam Finance,<br /> Saroj Tower, 2nd Floor,<br /> 27th Cross, Jayanagar, <br /> 3rd Block, Above Pizza Hut & Citi Financial,<br /> Bangalore – 560 007.<br /> Represented by its <br /> Branch Manager.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (Ajay Kohli)<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pre-close the loan account and pay a compensation of Rs.30,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant approached the OP for a personal loan in the month of October 2006. OP agreed to release loan of Rs.22,000/- with interest at the rate of 30% p.a. Complainant was required to repay the same in an EMI of Rs.1,164/-. Complainant is regular in making payment of the EMI up to 23 months, then he thought of pre-closure of the said loan. According to the complainant outstanding due was only Rs.9,780/-, but OP informed him in September 2008 that there is a due of Rs.14,661/- which is not correct. On enquiry complainant came to know that OP imposed an interest @ 48% p.a. as against the 30% agreed. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Then he caused the legal notice, there was no response. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of loan agreement. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, wherein charging of rate of interest is challenged. Though complainant sought for personal loan of Rs.22,000/- after necessary deduction OP disbursed Rs.20,765/- on 15.11.2006. The loan agreement clearly indicates the rate of interest that is going to be charged is 30.15% p.a. (flat) which shall be 48% p.a. on diminishing balance. Complainant is required to repay the said loan in an 36 EMI at the rate of Rs.1,164/-, but complainant defaulted. Hence OP is entitled to collect the cheque bouncing charges and other incidental charges. That act of the OP does not amounts to deficiency in service. The entire complaint is devoid of merits. There is no deficiency in service muchless unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed a personal loan of Rs.22,000/- from OP. OP after deducting the necessary charges released Rs.20,765/- on 15.11.2006. A loan agreement came to be executed. Complainant is expected to repay the said loan amount in an 36 EMI at the rate of Rs.1,164/-. Now the grievance of the complainant is that OP agreed to release the said loan with interest at the rate of 30% p.a. But it is specifically contended by the OP that as per the loan agreement the interest on the said loan ranges from 30.15% p.a. (flat) which shall be 48% p.a. on diminishing balance. When complainant is a party to the said loan agreement he is bound by the terms and conditions imposed therein and to speak against the said terms and conditions is not fair. Complainant is estopped from raising such untenable defence.<br /> <br /> 7. According to the complainant after making substantial EMI payment he thought of foreclosure of the said loan. As admitted by the complainant himself he has hardly paid 23 EMI as against 36. According to the complainant he was in due of only Rs.9,780/- by the end of September 2008. What is the basis for this conclusion is not known. On the other hand according to the complainant OP claimed Rs.14,661/- as dues. We have gone through the version filed by the OP it is specifically contended that the outstanding due by the end of September 2008 is Rs.12,293/- and not Rs.14,661/- as contended by the complainant. A connecting statement of accounts and documents are produced. So complainant himself is not very much sure what is the actual dues as on September 2008. The halfhearted evidence of the complainant will not come to his assistance and aid to seek the relief now as claimed. <br /> <br /> 8. The discretion lies with the OP to accept or not to accept the pre-closure of the account. If the complainant is not willing and ready to pay the outstanding dues and if he contends that he is indue lesser amount than that of the statement shown by the OP, then complainant cannot insist OP to for-close his account to his convenience. The approach of the complainant rather does not appears to be fair and honest. <br /> <br /> 9. On the receipt of the notice from the complainant OP has responded positively. OP being NBFC is governed by R.B.I rules and regulations while dealing with a financial matter. We have perused the loan agreement conditions incorporated therein, the allegations made by the complainant appears to be baseless. We find substance in the defence of the OP that this Forum cannot decide whether the rate of interest charged by it is excessive or not because it is beyond the scope of the C.P. Act. <br /> <br /> 10. On the plain reading of the complaint, the allegations made therein, it did not spell out a case of hiring of service and suffering from deficiency, rather it disclosed a case relating to settlement of accounts and for the balance due on the basis of the accounts. In our view the complainant did not fall within the ambit of sec-2(1) (c) (e) of the C.P. Act. If the complainant is so aggrieved Civil Suit is the proper remedy to redress his grievance, if so advised. With these observations we find the complainant has failed to establish the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence he is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 19th day of March 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />