Date of Filing :15.09.2022
Date of Disposal :25.07.2024
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED:25.07.2024
PRESENT
Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
(DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE (R)
Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER
APPEAL No.1879/2022
Mr Manoj Gowda
S/o Mr.Somashekar
Residing at 53, Thathanuru Village
Anugondanahalli Hobli
Hoskote Taluk
Bengaluru-560 0067
(In person) Appellant
-Versus-
1. Neogrowth Credit Pvt. Ltd.,
3rd Floor, No.14, Langford Road
Langford Gardens
Bengaluru-560 025
Rep. by Authorised Signatory
2. Neogrowth Credit Pvt. Ltd.,
501 and 503, Tower 2B
One Indiabull Centre
S.B. Marg, Mumbai 400 013
Rep. by Authorised Signatory
(By Mr Mohan Malge, Advocate) Respondents
-:ORDER:-
Mr. K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICAL MEMBER:
1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by Complainant aggrieved by the Order dated 02.08.2022 passed in Consumer Complaint No.327/2020 on the file of II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (for short, the District Commission).
2. The Parties to this Appeal will be referred to as the rank assigned to them by the District Commission
3. The Commission examined the impugned order, grounds of Appeal, Appeal papers and heard. Now the point that arises for consideration of this Commission would be:
Whether impugned order dated 02.08.2022 passed in CC No.327/2020 does call for an interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the Appeal Memorandum?
4. The Appellant/Complainant had raised a Consumer Complaint against OPs 1 and 2 with a relief to calculate the amount paid from the date of offering closure of loan account till the date of judgment and to collect the principal amount of Rs.3,09,000/- and close the loan account. Further sought for a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost. OPs 1 and 2 have contested the Complainant’s case.
In view of rival contentions of the parties, the DCDRC held an enquiry by receiving affidavit evidence of Complainant and Respondent, Ex-P1 to P3 and Ex-R1 to R5 thereby allowed the complaint in part and directed the Complainant shall pay a sum of Rs.2,44,000/- to the OPs towards full and final settlement of all claims as resolved before the RBI Ombudsman within 30 days failing which he is liable to pay interest as per the terms and condition of sanctioned letter on Rs.2,44,000/-. Further directed OPs to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation within 60 days failing which, to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum. It is this order is assailed in this Appeal contending that DCDRC has failed to appreciate the fact that he had been entangled in unlawful activities of the OP and had spent his precious time, money and energy etc., to seek justice for the last 3 years and despite observing unfair trade practices had ordered only a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses as against his request awarded Rs.10,000/- is not satisfied and the impugned order requires to be modified to direct OP to refund as excessively collected Rs.1,10,000/- as per direction of the DCDRC in Para 14 of the judgment. Since he had sought directions to be issued against OP to calculate the amount from the date of offering closure of the loan account on 21.07.2019 and the DCDRC inclined to direct the OP to calculate interest up to 21.07.2019 so far as the fore-closure is concerned. Further sought to award legal expenses at Rs.20,000/- and direct OP to credit report to be rectified in all the credit bureaus and he has sought many other reliefs which in our view could not be considered by the Commission in his complaint case since they are beyond the scope of his case and the scope of CP Act 2019 is limited to examine the grievance of the complainant, which was examined by DCDRC in his favour. Thus, in this Appeal, we have to decide whether a direction could be issued against OP to refund excessively collected Rs.1,10,000/- as observed in Para 4 of the impugned order.
5. Let us examine Para 13 and 14 of the impugned order. In Para 13 - As per Business Loan - Sanctioned letter dated 09.07.2019 marked as Ex-R2, the rate of interest agreed upon is 31.40% annualized percentage rate calculated at monthly rest. The loan amount of Rs.3,09,000/- was paid to the Complainant on 16.07.2019. The Complainant sought for closure of the said loan on 21.07.2019, but the repayment schedule continued and the Complainant has made a payment of around Rs.1,30,000/-. So, the complainant is claiming that he has to pay only Rs.1,79,000/- to the OPs being the balance loan amount, but, the OPs had given an offer before the RBI Ombudsman at Rs.2,44,000/- which was not considered by Complainant. However, the DCDRC found such offer at Rs.2,44,000/- is held fair & just, accordingly, held OPs are entitled for Rs.2,44,000/- without any interest which shall be paid by the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, as resolved by the RBI Ombudsman.
6. According to Complainant, what he had paid in excess at Rs.1,10,000/- has to be refunded. In this regard, it would be appropriate to place on record Rs.3,09,000/- was sanctioned in favour of complainant and after deducting the processing charges a sum of Rs.3,01,180/- was credited to his account. In other words, such amount was with him from the date of credit, but according to him, he was shock to note that instead of Rs 3,09,000/- the repayment schedule shown at Rs.4,90,460/-. It is therefore, he being a start up had borrowed said amount for a short term liquidate crisis to close it within 3 to 6 months, asked OPs to close the loan by way of a mail dated 21.07.2019. According to his case, he had already paid Rs.1,30,000/- as daily repayment and insisted that he can pay only Rs.1,79,000/- if these two figures have to be added, which would come to Rs.2,89,000/- as against credit of Rs.3,00,180/-. As already stated loan amount of Rs.3,09,000/- was sanctioned to him and had he intend to close the loan by sending an email on 20.07.2019 but facts remain that he had utilised such amount without retransferring pursuant to the email dated 20.07.2019 in favour of OPs and in such circumstances, RBI ombudsmen, considering the repayment of Rs.1,30,000/- towards daily repayment had offered Rs.2,44,000/- towards full and final settlement, was rightly considered by the DCDRC while passing the impugned order, as such, we did not find any good reasons to interfere in the impugned order. In our view proposal made by OPs before RBI ombudsman and its acceptance of DCDRC on an enquiry and directing the Complainant to pay such amount to OPs towards full and final settlement of all claims as resolved by RBI Ombudsmen could be held most reasonable which cannot be interfered with for the grounds set out in the appeal memo. However, awarding of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation needs to be modified. Accordingly, we proceed to allow the Appeal in part. Consequently, impugned order dated 02.08.2022 passed in Consumer Complaint No.327/2020 on the file of II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru is hereby modified and directed the Complainant to pay a sum of Rs.2,44,000/- to OPs towards full and final settlement as directed by DCDRC and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation within 60 days, failing which the amount so awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of such default till realisation.
7. Send copy of this Order to the District Commission and the parties concerned.
Lady Member Judicial Member
*s
