BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.201 of 2016

Date of Instt. 04.05.2016

Date of Decision: 21.03.2018

Jasveer Singh son of Sh. Hari Ram, resident of Village & P.O. Hellar, Near Heerapur, Tehsil and Distt. Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Muthoot Finance Limited Branch Code No.0325, Jalandhar, through Branch Manager.

2. General Manager Muthoot Finance Limited, Allaknanda, New Delhi.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. Asa Singh, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. Aditya Jain, Adv Counsel for OP No.1 and 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. The present complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is the Second-in-Command of the Central Armed Police Force and has been mostly deployed in remote areas of the different states of the Union of India very frequently and this fact was clearly told to the then Branch Manager Sh. Sajjan Singh. The nature of the job could create difficulty in the regular payment of the installments, which was excused by the Branch Manager, telling the complainant that he will not be burdened with the charging of the penalties for the delayed payments if any and will be given the coins back in case he paid the total amount payable as the loan only. With this clear assurance given by the OP Company, the complainant took up this scheme of the OP. The complainant earnestly has paid the total amount of the loan with the full interest and has paid Rs.8771/- more than the total payable amount of loan and the total interest. The OP has been unfair not to return the mortgage two gold coins of 50 gram each so far thereby indulged in the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service that after receipt of the total payable amount, the OP has not returned the above said two gold coins with the OP kept as the security for the payment of the loan.

2. The complainant Jasveer Singh availed two personal loans of Rs.1.22 lacs each from OP and was to pay back the loan amount with total interest of Rs.84,180/- in 36 installments with agreed 11.54% interest per annum, in each account of loan i.e. SSC304 and 305 and as such, the complainant become the consumer of the OP.

3. That the complainant mortgaged two gold coins of 50 grams each purchased from the sister concern of the OP for the above said loan i.e. Rs.1.22 lacs each and they were returnable after the completion of the two said loans. One Arun Kumar, resident of V&PO Heellar, Near Heerapur, Tehsil and Distt. Jalandhar was with the complainant in the office of the OP at Jalandhar when the oral deal was struck on 25.10.2011. It was specifically agreed that the total payable amount “Loan amount plus total interest” will be paid back by the complainant in convenient and easy 36 installments and accordingly, the complainant paid total amount as per agreement alongwith interest i.e. Rs.3,36,951/-, whereas the due amount was Rs.3,28,180/- and as such, the complainant has paid excess amount of Rs.8771/- and the OP unfairly is still demanding more amount for the settlement of account from the complainant and to return the pledged gold coins. So, many letters regarding the total payment made by the complainant sent to the OP and requested them not to charge the delay charges from the complainant, but the OPs are adamant and as such, legal notice dated 05.02.2016 alongwith an other amount of Rs.1049/- was sent to the OP, but still they are demanding more amount and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to return the excess paid amount of Rs.9820/- and also OPs be burdened with compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony, inconvenience and harassment caused to the complainant.

4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared through its counsel and filed joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objection that the instant complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant is not a 'Consumer' as defined in the 'Consumer Protection Act' and further averred that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be dismissed, as the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands and has presented a distorted and incorrect version of the facts before this Forum. The complainant has attempted to mislead the Forum and further alleged that no cause of action arose in favour of the complainant and as such, the instant complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed and further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP rather the complainant has concealed the material facts. The true facts of the matter are that the complainant had booked two gold coins weighting 50 Grams each with the OP company as per the SSC Scheme, for a total amount of Rs.2,95,759/-. As per the said scheme, the complainant made down payment of Rs.51,759/- for purchasing of the said two Gold coins and the balance amount of Rs.2,44,000/- was availed by the complainant by way of two loan facilities, which was sanctioned to the complainant in the sum of Rs.1,22,000/- each, vide SSC No.304 and SSC No.305 on 25.10.2011. As per the mutually agreed terms, the complainant undertook to repay the said loan amount Rs.1,22,000/- towards each loan along with interest @ 11.54% by way of 36 equal monthly installments of Rs.4559/- each and upon repayment of the entire loan along with contractual interest, the gold coins were to be delivered to the complainant, but the complainant failed to make the payment of EMIs on the scheduled date, the complainant would liable to pay late payment charges/penal interest for the defaulted installments and as per terms agreed between the parties, the complainant is liable to pay charges/interest on the delayed installments. The complainant has made payment of only 30 installments in each loan case as on 23.03.2016, a sum of Rs.41,405/- in each loan case is still due and payable by the complainant to the OPs. After making the payment of entire loan amount, the said gold coins are to be delivered to the complainant. In the light of above facts, it is clear that the complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of any truth or merits and hence, liable to be dismissed with cost. Copy of statement of account in respect of both the loan account bearing No.304-305 is enclosed. On merits, the factum in regard to purchase of two gold coins and mortgaging the same for getting two loans of Rs.1,22,000/- each from the OP on 25.10.2011, is admitted, but the remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA, supplementary affidavit Ex.CB and affidavit of one Arun Kumar is Ex.CC. Apart from that the complainant also tendered into evidence some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and then closed the evidence.

6. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A along with some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

8. As per version of the complainant, he availed two loan of Rs.1,22,000/- each from the OPs after mortgaging two gold coins of 50 Gm each and as per the term and condition of the agreement of loan, the complainant is liable to pay the principal amount as well as thereon interest @ 11.54% per annum and it was also agreed that the complainant will pay the said loan amount of each case by way of 36 installments in each case by paying monthly installments of Rs.4559/- and accordingly, the complainant has paid the total amount of both loans i.e. Rs.3,36,951/-, whereas the total amount of both loan comes to Rs.3,28,180/- i.e. Rs.1,22,000/- principal and thereon interest @ 11.5%, which comes to Rs.42,090/- and in total Rs.1,64,090/- in each case and if, we calculate the total amount of both case, which comes to Rs.3,28,180/-, whereas as per version of the complainant, he has already paid excess amount of Rs.8771/- and then again paid Rs.1049/- at the time of serving a legal notice and these facts have been established by the complainant by tendering into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA, supplementary affidavit Ex.CB and version of the complainant is corroborated by one Arun Kumar, through his affidavit Ex.CC and further complainant sent a letter to the OP, which is Ex.C-7 for refund of the excess amount received from the complainant and calculation of the amount paid by the complainant was also sent to the OP along with the aforesaid letter Ex.C-7 in the shape of Appendix-A and further complainant brought on the file statement of account of both the loan accounts, which is Ex.C-8 and as per calculation of the total amount as shown in the aforesaid loan account statement, the complainant has paid 30 installments and total amount is Rs.1,36,748/- in each case and the total amount of both the case comes to Rs.3,73,496/- paid by the complainant.

9. No doubt, the OP has controverted the story narrated by the complainant with the submission that the complainant has paid so many installments after the due date and as per terms of the agreement, complainant is liable to pay damages/penalty @ 2% per month on the delayed installment and as such, after calculating the delayed payment, still an amount of Rs.41,159/- plus damages/penalty due to late payment on the last six installments still due towards the complainant in each case of the loan and for that purpose, the OP has brought on the file one affidavit Ex.OP/A of its employee and statement of account Ex.OP/1 contains six leaves and loan sanctioned letter Ex.OP/2 and an other document Ex.OP/3.

10. We find that the OP has simply took a plea that the complainant is liable to pay 2% damages/charges on the delayed payment as per terms and conditions of the agreement, but the OP has miserably failed to bring on the file any copy of the loan agreement, which is duly signed by both the parties. So, in the absence of any agreement of loan, how we can assess and ascertain? which were the conditions settled between the parties at the time of disbursement of the loan, in regard to penalty on the delayed payment, rate of interest and amount of the EMI's. So, the version of the OP is not established. No doubt, the OP has brought on the file undertaking-cum-loan sanction letter Ex.OP/2 and on the reverse side of that document, some terms and conditions are mentioned, but if we go through these terms and conditions, there is no term and condition in regard to charges of penalty/damages on the delayed amount. So, if there is no agreement in regard to get damages/penalty interest on the delayed payment, then the OP is not entitled to recover the same, but the OP has gotten the penalty and other expenditure from the complainant in so many occasions as mentioned in the statement of account of loan No.304, copy of the same is Ex.OP/1, wherein so many entries have been made in regard to postal charges and over due charges. So, we find that the OP has illegally and without any jurisdiction had charged penalty amount from the complainant on the delayed payment, which is liable to be adjusted in the loan amount. Further, the OP has intentionally and willfully brought on the file only one statement of loan account of loan No.304, but the statement of loan account of No.305 is not brought on the file for the best known reason. If we calculate the excess amount in the shape of over due charges and postage charges obtained from the complainant during the pendency of loan amount, then it comes to Rs.29,354/-, whereas as per statement of loan account Ex.OP/1, the last due amount shown on 21.08.2015 is Rs.27,342/-. So, if we minus the excess amount charged by the OP from the complainant in the name of over due charges i.e. Rs.29,354/- is minus from the last due amount shown in the statement of account i.e. Rs.27,342/-, then there is an excess amount recovered by the OP from the complainant is Rs.2012/-. So, it means that the complainant has already paid excess amount of the loan amount and nothing is remained to be recovered from the complainant.

11. The conduct of the complainant can be further adjudged from the pleading as well as from the documents, the OP alleged in its written statement, in para No.6 in the preliminary objection that the complainant is liable to pay the loan amount in 36 equally monthly installment of Rs.4559/- each, but when the OP filed an affidavit Ex.OP/A of Senior Branch Manager, wherein took a new plea that the complainant is liable to pay installment of Rs.6279/- and also added an other line that complainant was also liable to pay damages/penalty @ 2% per month, the condition of 2% per month is not mentioned in the written reply. So, it is clear that the OP is changing its stand time to time and one time stated that the EMI was Rs.4559/- in each loan case, then in the affidavit, he stated that the EMI of Rs.6289/- in each case. So, from all the angles, it is clearly established that the OP has already recovered the entire loan amount from the complainant and nothing is remained due and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant succeeds and he is entitled for the relief.

12. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to return the two gold coins, weighting 50 Grams each mortgaged by the complainant at the time of getting two loans and the OPs are further directed to pay compensation for mental agony and harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. The entire compliance be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order, failing which the OPs will liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- from the date of filing complaint, till realization. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

13. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

21.03.2018 Member President