Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/343/2017

P.N.Porchilai - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Shri Ram City Union Finance Ltd.,Muruganandam - Opp.Party(s)

N.Moorthi

25 Jul 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed :30.10.2017

Date of Reservation      : 15.07.2022

Date of Order               : 25.07.2022

 

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.343/2017

MONDAY, THE 25^th DAY OF JULY 2022

Mrs. P.N. Porchilai,

No.1-D, Chetput Railway Quarters,

Jaganathapuram,

Chennai – 600 031.                                                                                                                                                          ... Complainant                          

 

..Vs..

M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.,

Rep. by its Authorised Representative,

Mr. Muruganandam,

No.3, 3^rd Floor,

Sorrento Building,

L.B.Road, Adyar,

Chennai – 600 020.                                                                                                                                                        ...  Opposite Party

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. N. Moorthi

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : M/s. K.V Ananthakrushnan

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Party, we delivered the following:

ORDER

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

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to pay a compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/-towards compensation for severely spoiled the Complainant reputation at office environment also resulted in preventing future promotion and thereby has caused severe mental agony to the Complainant due to deficiency in service of the Opposite Party along with cost.

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

                The Complainant’s sister's daughter named Mrs. Srilekha has applied for personal loan during June 2011 with Opposite Party concern. The Complainant has stood guarantor for her loan A/C. No.AGT.NO. AMBTRIF10030006 availed with the Opposite Party. The said Mrs.Srilekha has preclosed her said loan A/C.No. AGT NO.AMBTRIF10030006 on 17.11.2012, confirming the same ‘No Due Certificate' was also issued by the Opposite Party on 25.02.2015. During June 2012 one of the Opposite Party company collection agent through phone has informed to the Complainant that one Mr. Mohan has availed loan, and the Complainant has stood as a guarantor for his loan, further Mr. Mohan has not repaid the loan amount and called the Complainant to repay the loan as a guarantor liable to repay the loan, in turn the Complainant has denied as the transaction were not related to her in the above said loan(Mohan). She has narrated to the Opposite Party about her real transaction as she was stood only as a guarantor for the loan availed by her sister's daughter Mrs.Srilekha that was also preclosed by her on 17.11.2012, confirming the same ‘No Due Certificate' was also issued by the Opposite Party on 25.03.2015. Hence the legal contractual relationship between the Complainant and Opposite Party ceases on 17.11.2012 evidenced by No Due Certificate dated 25.02.2015, thereafter Complainant had not entered any contractual agreement with the Opposite Party. Thereafter she went to purchase AC Machine, in Vasanth & Co, T.Nagar branch, and has applied to the Opposite Party for loan to buy under Hire purchase scheme and the loan application got rejected for the reason that she has to pay some pending amount to Opposite Party Shriram City Union Finance Company. Thereafter the Complainant has approached the concerned authority of Opposite Party company at Ambattur and Thiruvanmiyur branch and submitted a letter to Branch Manager, Shriram Finance, Greams Road, Thousand lights branch to relieve the Complainant from the loan repayment claim for which the Complainant was not at all liable. The Complainant’s particulars and documents furnished as guarantor for her sister's daughter Smt Srileha’s loan purpose was misused by the Opposite Party. She has brought notice about this to the Opposite Party who assured to solve the problem. At this juncture the Opposite Party has co ducted arbitration proceeding related to Mr. Mohan Loan A/c adding the Complainant as guarantor and the Complainant was set -exparte in arbitration proceedings. Based on ex-parte award passed against the Complainant in Arbitration Award ACP No.715 of 2012, the Opposite Party has filed E.P. No.726/2014 before the  X Assistant City Civil Court here also the Opposite Party has obtained ex-parte garnishee order for Rs.5,00,000/-(15,000x60months) against the Complainant as Respondent in E.P.No.726/2014 directing employer of the Complainant for attachment of Rs.5000/- for 60 months from salary of the Complainant and appropriate it in Mr. Mohan Loan A/C, based on this court order the Complainant’s employer to comply court order, 1 month attachment due of Rs.5000/- has deducted from the Complainant salary and appropriated in Mr. Mohan Loan A/c due This has caused a severe mental agony to the Complainant causing severe damage to the Complainant reputation at office, environment as black mark as well as affecting future promotion. Later on the Complainant has made an endorsement on 17.12.2015 pursuance to Section 47 CPC petition filed by the Complainant as 'EP dismissed against JD2’. Under this circumstances the Complainant at has issued legal notice dated 13.04.2016 to the Opposite Party. After receiving notice, no response from the Opposite Party. Hence  the complaint.

3.   Brief facts of the Written Version filed by the Opposite Party are as follows:-

        The Complainant’s sister daughter Mrs. Srilekha availed business loan on 03.10.2011 under Loan Agreement No.AMBTRTF10030006 at the Opposite Party’s Ambattur Branch. It is a business loan and not a personal loan as stated in the complaint. Mrs. Srilekha availed the loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and agreed to repay the loan amount with interest of a sum of Rs.1,24,000/- and in all a sum of Rs.3,74,400/- payable in 36 equal monthly installment of Rs. 10, 400/ commencing from 10/11/2011 to 10/10/2014.  After availing the loan, the borrower along with the guarantors committed default in repayment of the loan amount and finally settled and closed the loan account 26.3.2015. Hence the borrower did not pre close the loan as alleged in the complaint. One Mr. Mohan, who is residing at No:15/30, School Street, Indra Nagar, Ambattur, Chennai-600053 on 27.9.2011 availed business loan of Rs3,50,000/- under Loan Agreement on TVMYRTF0940001 at our Thiruvanmiyur Branch. To secure the loan amount, the borrower Mr. Mohan furnished 3 personal guarantors; viz. 1) Mrs. P. N. Porchilai/Complainant 2) Mr.J.K. Sekar and 3) Mr.G. Srinivasan. The personal guarantors furnished their passport size photo, copy of ration card, copy of voters identity card and Employer ID proof and also signed the loan agreement. Trusting and believing the same, to be correct and true and bonafidely based on the personal guarantee given and on execution of the loan agreement, the Opposite Party on 27-9-2011 granted the loan to the borrower Mr.Mohan. The borrower Mr. Mohan agreed to repay the loan amount of Rs.3,50,000/- with the interest of Rs. 1,74,160/- and in all Rs.5,24,160/- in 36 months at Rs. 14,560/- p.m commencing from 10/11/2011 to 10/10/2014. After availing the loan, the borrower Mr. Mohan committed default in repayment of the loan amount. The opposite parties made several demands to recover the outstanding amount. But neither the borrower nor the guarantors repaid the amount. Hence the Opposite Party invoked the Arbitration clause contained in the loan agreement, against the borrower and the guarantors and conducted Arbitration Proceedings. The sole arbitrator passed the award against the Complainant as well as the borrower directing them to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs 4,49,634/- with interest at 18% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. Based on the award, the Opposite Party filed Execution Petition No.726 of 2014 before the X Asst City Civil Court -Chennai claiming a sum of Rs 5,65,152/ against the Complainant and Mr. Srinivasan by attaching their salary. On receiving the EP notice, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party's branch office and stated that she did not know the borrower and did not sign the loan agreement as guarantor. On such complaint, Opposite Party without rejecting the grievance made genuine investigation over the said issue and found that the Complainant did not sign as guarantor. Thereafter, the Opposite Party by letter dated 9.12.2015 informed the Complainant that the execution proceedings would be withdrawn only against the Complainant. When the case came up for hearing on 17.12.2015, the Opposite Party withdrawn the Execution Petition against the Complainant, with the bonafide and genuine belief that the entire issue between the Complainant and the Opposite Party was fully settled without any claim against each other. While so, the execution court passed the order and attached her one month salary. Thereafter no attachment effected. The Opposite Party has no objection for the Judgement Debtor to file a petition to realize the salary attached. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7 were marked. The Opposite Party has submitted his Proof Affidavit and no documents filed on the side of Opposite Party.

5.     Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

The undisputed facts are that the Complainant’s sister’s daughter Mrs.Srilekha had availed personal Loan Agreement No. AMBTRTF10030006 in June 2011 from the Opposite Party for which the Complainant had stood as guarantor. The said Mrs.Srilekha had preclosed the loan on 17.11.2012 and the Opposite party had issued “No Due Certificate” on 25.02.2015 as found in Ex.A-1. The contention of the Complainant was that during June 2012, the Opposite party had called the Complainant to repay the loan as a guarantor for the loan availed by one Mr.Mohan, which transaction was refused by the Complainant. Thereafter when the Complainant wanted to purchase AC machine from Vasanth & Co., T.Nagar Branch and applied to the Opposite Party for loan her loan was rejected for the reason that she had not paid amounts to the Opposite Party as a guarantor for the loan availed by the said Mr.Mohan. The Complainant never executed guarantee letter to the said Mr.Mohan and the documents she executed for Srilekha’s loan was misused by the Opposite party, which fact was brought to the notice of the Reserve Bank of India on 18.02.2015, as per Ex.A-5, which was acknowledged by the RBI by way of reply dated 23.02.2015, in Ex.A-6. It is also not in dispute that the Opposite party had conducted Arbitration Proceedings against Mohan and the Complainant where the Complainant was set exparte. Based on the Exparte Order passed in ACP.No.715 of 2012, execution proceedings in E.P.No.726 of 2014 was filed before the X Assistant Civil Court, Chennai and obtained exparte garnishee order for Rs.5,00,000/- against the Complainant directing the employer of the Complainant for attachment of Rs.5000/- for 60 months from the salary of the Complainant . Pursuant to which 1^st month attachment of Rs.5000/- was made from the salary of the Complainant. The Complainant filed E.A.No.2563 of 2015 in E.P.No.726 of 2014 to dismiss the E.P. wherein based on the endorsement made by the Opposite Party, the E.P. was dismissed against the Complainant as found in Ex.A-7. Due to deficiency in service of the Opposite Party the Complainant’s reputation was spoiled. Hence legal notice dated 13.04.2016, Ex.A-2 was sent to the Opposite party claiming damages, which was received by the Opposite Party with no response.

The contention of the Opposite Party is that one Mr.Mohan availed business loan from the Opposite Party on 27.09.2011 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- vide Loan Agreement No.AVMYRTF0940001 by furnishing 3 guarantors including the Complainant. Believing to be correct the Opposite Party granted the loan to the borrower Mr.Mohan, who agreed to repay the loan amount in 36 months at Rs.14,560/- p.m commencing from 10.11.2011 to 10.10.2014. Since the borrower committed default, Arbitral proceedings was initiated and award was passed against the Complainant and borrower. Based on which Execution Petition No.726 of 2014 was filed before the X Asst City Civil Court, Chennai. On receipt of E.P notice the Complainant had approached the Opposite Party. Considering her complaint investigation was made and found that the Complainant did not sign as guarantor and hence on 17.12.2015, the Opposite Party had withdrawn the Execution Petition against the Complainant. Before the withdrawal, one month’s salary was attached and the same is lying in the credit of said E.P.No.726 of 2014. As the Complainant was relived from all liability the question of deficiency of service will not arise.

Though it is seen that a wrong has been committed by the Opposite Party in not properly verifying the documents of guarantor and sanctioning loan in a hasty manner and implicating the Complainant in Arbitral case which went to the extent of attachment of the Complainant’s salary, the question here is as to whether the Complainant falls under the definition of a “Consumer” as stipulated under the Consumer Protection Act and whether there is a consumer and service provider relationship between the Complainant and the Opposite Party.

Sec 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, defines “Consumer” as a person who buy goods or avails services for consideration. In this case the Complainant had not availed any service from the Opposite Party nor she has paid any consideration to the Opposite party. As rightly pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Party. Neither, the Complainant is beneficiary of any of the services availed from the Opposite Party. The said Mr.Mohan who has availed services i.e., loan from the Opposite party is not a party to this Complaint. As the Complainant does not fall under the definition of “Consumer” the Complainant cannot maintain this complaint. Aggrieved consumer can come before this Commission for redressal but not for every kind of  dispute. Hence we are of the considered view that this Consumer Complaint is not maintainable. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2 to 4:-

As the Complainant failed to establish the consumer and service provider relationship and as the Complainant has not availed any services from the Opposite Party, there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. However, the Complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate forum for her redressal. In view of the above discussions the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought for the Complaint or for any other reliefs. Accordingly, Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No cost.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 25^th of July 2022.  

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                                  T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                                     B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                                                                 MEMBER I                                                                        PRESIDENT

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

 

Ex.A1	25.03.2015	“No Due Certificate” in loan A/c. No.AGT No. AMBTRIF10030006 – availed by the Complainant sister’s daughter Mrs.Srilekha
Ex.A2	13.04.2016	Complainant sent legal notice
Ex.A3	25.04.2016	Opposite Party received notice sent by RPAD
Ex.A4	16.11.2012	Fore closure Statement
Ex.A5	18.02.2015	Complaint sent letter to RBI
Ex.A6	23.02.2015	Receipt of Reply
Ex.A7	17.12.2015	E.A.2565/15 filed by Complainant

 

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

 

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                                                      T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                            B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                                                                     MEMBER I                                                               PRESIDENT