Kerala

Idukki

CC/124/2021

Priya Biju - Complainant(s)

Versus

Muthoot Vehicle and asset finance ltd - Opp.Party(s)

15 Dec 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 7.9.2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 15^th  day of  December, 2022

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

CC NO.124/2021

Between

Complainant                                           :     Priya Biju, W/o. Biju,

                                                                   Thanikkuzhiyil House,

                                                                   Mullaringadu P.O.,

                                                                   Vannappuram, Idukki.

          (By Adv: M.S. Vinayaraj)

And

Opposite Parties                                     : 1.  Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance ltd.

                                                                   Represented by its Managing Director,

                                                                   Corporate Office, 6^th Floor, Midhun Tower,

                                                                   K.P. Vallon Road, Kadavanthra,

           Kochi – 682 020.

      2. The Manager,

                                                                   Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Ltd.,

                                                                   Branch Office, Thodupuzha,

                                                                   2^nd Floor, Mahima Towers 28/458,

                                                                   Temple Bypass Road, Thodupuzha P.O.,

                                                                   Idukki – 685 584.

 (Both by Adv: Jayasankar G.

& Lissy M.M.)

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019.  Complainant had availed a loan of Rs.77,000/- on 12.8.2019, from 1^st opposite party, a finance company, for purchasing a scooter, namely, Hero Maestro, bearing registration No.KL-38-H-5572.  Loan was disbursed from branch office of 1^st opposite party at Thodupuzha, which is represented in these proceedings by its manager.  Loan was to be repaid in monthly instalments of Rs.2995/-.  At the time of availing loan, complainant and her  husband, who is the guarantor, were made to sign a printed loan agreement form, which was mostly  blank.  2 cheques drawn on Federal Bank were obtained from complainant and her husband as security for the loan.  Complainant was prompt in paying monthly instalments.  On 23.6.2021, she had paid Rs.6060/- towards 18^th, 19^th and 20^th instalments.  At that time, 2^nd opposite party had demanded immediate payment of 3 more instalments, for which complainant was not amenable.  She had                                                                                                                     (cont….2)

• 2  -

informed 2^nd opposite party that she wanted to clear the loan by making one time payment, for which 2^nd opposite party had  agreed.  Out of total amount of Rs.1,08,000/-, complainant had already remitted Rs.60,000/-.  When she had gone with Rs.50,000/-for paying balance amount of Rs.48,000/-, 2^nd opposite party,  had sought payment of Rs.80,000/- for clearing the loan.  Opposite parties are charging excessive interest which is in violation of Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act of 2012.  On 27.8.2021, 2^nd respondent had threatened to file criminal cases using blank signed cheque given by complainant and her husband as security.  They had also threatened to initiate arbitration proceedings by appointing an arbitrator at Kolkata.  There was threat to take forcible possession of the vehicle also.  Complainant was prepared to pay balance instalments as per agreement executed.  Opposite parties are not willing to accept that.  Complainant therefore prays for a direction against opposite parties to settle account of complainant as per norms and conditions of RBI, for a further direction to return excess interest collected from complainant and also against taking forcible possession of the vehicle.  She also seeks costs of this proceeding.

 

2.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 have appeared and filed a joint written version.  Their case is briefly discussed hereunder :

 

According to them, complaint is not maintainable in law or upon facts.  Complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(7) of the Act.  Disputes raised by complainant will not amounts to consumer dispute and hence complaint cannot be treated as one filed under the Act.  In view of arbitration clause in the loan agreement, complaint is not maintainable.  1^st opposite party is engaged in the business of providing loan mainly on hypothecation and guarantee basis.  Complainant had availed a loan of Rs.78,411/- from opposite party for purchasing a Hero Maestro Scooter.  Total value to be repaid by complainant was agreed to be Rs.1,13,755/-, which was to be repaid in 36 equated monthly instalments of Rs.2995/-,from 10.11.2019 onwards.  Complainant had signed the loan agreement after fully understanding the terms and conditions of repayment.  Her husband was the guarantor for the loan.  Terms and conditions of  loan were explained to complainant and her husband and thereafter both have voluntarily signed the agreement.  It is incorrect to say that both were make to sign a printed agreement, major portion of which was  blank.  Signed blank cheques were not obtained as security from complainant or her husband.  Loan agreement was signed from the Thodupuzha office of 2^nd opposite party.  Complainant was not prompt in making instalment payments.  Since payments were delayed, interest was collected for the delay period also.  On most occasions, cheques issued by complainant had bounced and therefore she was liable to pay collection and other charges in respect of bounced cheques as per the agreement.  On 23.6.2021, she had paid Rs.6,060/-.  However, it is incorrect to say that the payment was towards 18^th, 19^th and 20^th instalments.  Admission by complainant that monthly instalment payable is of Rs.2995/- itself nullifies the case that the money was paid to cover 3 instalments.  All amount paid by complainant, even                                                                                                                (cont….3)

• 3  -

delayed ones were accounted for.  Complainant was given benefit of moratorium for 3 months.  10^th, 11^th and 12^th instalments were not collected.  These instalments are still due from complainant.  It is incorrect to say that total amount payable by complainant is only Rs.1,08,000/.  It is further incorrect to say that she had paid Rs.60,000/- and balance total is Rs.48,000/-.  On 23.6.2021, 5 monthly instalments were due from complainant, out of which she had only paid 2.  Complainant had not arranged for Rs.50,000/- on 16.8.2021 for closing the loan.  Loan amount cannot be closed by payment of the said amount.  As on 4.10.2021, total outstanding to the credit of opposite party is Rs.86,327.76/- which includes overdue amount, future dues, interest for overdue amount, other expenses, GST and other legal charges.  Complainant is liable to pay the said amount and her present intention is to evade the liability.  Opposite parties have not demanded any excess amount and interest charged is as per loan agreement  and also in accordance with RBI guidelines.  There was no threat to initiate criminal case, arbitration proceedings or to take forcible possession of vehicle as alleged in complaint.  Since complainant has evaded payment of dues, opposite parties have the right to take legal remedies for realizing the same.  If complainant intends to close the loan, she will have to pay the amount due as per account maintained by opposite party.   Entire transaction is in accordance with the norms and guidelines of RBI.  There is no cause of action for the complaint.  It is to be dismissed with costs.

 

3. After filing of written version, case was posted for steps and then for evidence.  Though repeated opportunities were granted, complainant has not filed any affidavit or turned up to give evidence.  Documents produced along with complaint were marked as Exts.P1 to P3.  Ext.P1 is photocopy of RC of the scooter, Ext.P2 is copy of insurance policy taken for the scooter and Ext.P3 is copy of cash receipt for payment of Rs.6,060/- issued in the name of complainant dated 23.6.2021.

 

No oral evidence was tendered by opposite parties.  Certified account extract of complainant maintained by 2^nd opposite party was admitted as Ext.R1.  Since complainant was not present when evidence was closed, it was not possible to give him or his counsel further opportunity for evidence or hearing.  Learned counsel for opposite party has addressed oral arguments.  We have gone through the complaint, written version, documents admitted and have considered the contentions addressed by learned counsel for opposite party.  Now the point which arise for consideration are :

 

1)  Whether complaint is maintainable ?

2)  Whether there was any deficiency in service ?

3)  Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint ?

4)  Final Order and costs ?

 

 

                                                                                                          (cont….4)

 

• 4  -

 

4.  Point Nos.1 to 3 are considered together :

 

          Though complainant would contend that opposite parties are charging excess interest in violation of Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act 2012, we have found nothing in the pleadings or documents produced to substantiate this contention.  There is no evidence to show that interest was charged in violation of Section 2(1) a to h of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act 2012.  There is no evidence to show that complainant and her husband were made to sign printed agreement form, most of which was  blank.  There is no evidence to substantiate her contentions that blank singed cheque leaves were obtained from herself and her husband.  Though complainant contends that excess interest was charged, she has not specified the rate of interest she had to pay or the amount as such she had paid in excess.  Ext.R1 account extract discloses that annual interest is 12.495%.  Total loan amount is Rs.78,411/-.  This was to be repaid in 36 monthly instalments, which means that the loan period was of 3 years.  What is prohibited under Section 7 of Kerala Money Lenders Act is collection of more than 18% of interest + 2% processing charge per annum.  From the contentions advanced and documents admitted, we do not find anything to show that complainant was made to pay excess interest or charges  in violation of Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act of 2012 or Kerala Money Lenders Act of 1958.  On the whole, there is no evidence of any deficiency in service.

 

          In so far as contentions advanced challenging maintainability of complaint are concerned, mere inclusion of arbitration clause in the loan agreement will not take the complaint beyond the ambit of Consumer Protection Act of 2019.  Admittedly, 1^st opposite party is a financing company and 2^nd opposite party is its branch office at Thodupuzha, represented by its manager.  Providing finance by way of loan is indeed a service as defined under the Act and opposite parties are service providers.  It is idle  to contend that opposite parties are  not service providers and that the complainant is not a consumer.    Under these circumstances, we find that complaint is maintainable. 

 

          Yet in view of our earlier findings that there is no deficiency in service, we are of the view that the reliefs prayed for are not to be granted.  Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered accordingly. 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                          (cont….5)

 

 

 

 

• 5  -

 

5.  Point No.4 :

 

          In the result, this complaint is dismissed without costs.  Parties shall take back extra copies without delay.

 

          Pronounced by this Commission on this the  15^th   day of December, 2022

 

 

                                                                                                Sd/-

   SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                             Sd/-

 SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                   Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1     -  Photocopy of RC of the scooter,

Ext.P2     - Copy of insurance policy taken for the scooter and

Ext.P3     - Copy of cash receipt for payment of Rs.6,060/- issued in the name of

                  complainant dated 23.6.2021

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1    -  Copy of Account extract.

 

 

 

                                                                                            Forwarded by Order,

 

 

                                                                                      ASSISTANT REGISTRAR