Ms.Rachna Arora,  Member

1.       The complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  the complainant approached the Opposite Party  for the advancement of car loan and accordingly, the  loan application was submitted to the Opposite Party  by the complainant and after verifying the documents of the complainant, the loan of Rs.2,60,000/- was sanctioned to the complainant on 26.5.2006 vide lona account No.ULP1638 with interest payable @ 8% per annum in equal 60 monthly installments, which the complainant has already paid so far. It was agreed by the complainant to pay monthly equally installments of Rs.5272/- (including principal and interest amount) for 60 months to the Opposite Party. As per the terms of the loan agreement, 60 undated cheques amounting to Rs.5272/- each were handed over by the complainant to the Opposite Party  bearing Nos.298291 to 298300 and 448151 to 448200 amounting to Rs.5272/- issued in favour of the Opposite Party  each drawn upon Corporation Bank, Branch Lawrence Road, Amritsar and the same were cleared in time on its presentation and last cheque was cleared by the banker of the complainant on 15.7.2011. As such, the complete loan amount with interest was duly paid by the complainant to the Opposite Party  and nothing  was due against the complainant. Copy of account statement, cheques payment details are attached. After clearance of all the payments and clearance of the loan account, the complainant  asked the Opposite Party  to issue No Due Certificate so that hypothecation be cancelled from the concerned department after submitting No due Certificate. But after passing long time,  the Opposite Party  stated that there is outstanding loan amount in the account of the complainant and when the complainant has objected for the same and asked them to provide the complete detail and the same was also not provided to the complainant by the Opposite Party. But instead of issuing the No Due Certificate, the guarantor of the complainant, received the summons from the Opposite Party  of some suit for recovery of Rs.81,516/- filed against the complainant and his guarantor by the Opposite Party. After appearing in the court in the suit filed by the Opposite Party, the complainant visited the Opposite Party  and shown his bank statement proving that the loan amount alongwith interest has already been paid by the complainant to the Opposite Party  and requested the Opposite Party  to issue No Due Certificate and to withdraw the proceedings before the Hon’ble Court, but the Opposite Party  refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. In this way, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party  and the complainant is facing harassment, agony, tension due to such mal practice, Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Party.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Party  be directed to issue the No Due Certiciate in favour of the complainant and to clear the loan account f the complainant with the Opposite Party. Opposite Party  be also directed to pay the litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental pain, occurred to the complainant for the wrongful acts done by the Opposite Party and the complainant may kindly be awarded any other relief to which the c  is entitled to under the law in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay.    

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party  appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the fact of matter is that the complainant was sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,60,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum to be returned to 60 instalments. At that time of advancement of the loan to the complainant the rate of interest was 8% per annum and it is itself mentioned in the loan application as well as letter of hypothecation to the term loan that the complainant will abide by the revised additional terms and conditions of the bank which may at any time thereafter be made while the loan obtained by the complainant is still binding in the year 2006. The rate of interest was increased/ enhanced from 8% per annum to 13% per annum and the complainant has confirming the balance and interest time to time. Thereafter, the Opposite Party  also issued notices from time to time confirming the revised additional terms and conditions of the loan, but the complainant did not bother for the same and thereafter, the Opposite Party  also served loan for the balance outstanding amount from the complainant of Rs.81,516/- including of interest till 31.7.2014, but the complainant did not comply with the same and thereafter, the Opposite Party  filed the recovery suit in the Civil Court and the same is pending and the complainant has to abide by the additional terms and conditions between the complainant and the Opposite Party. On merits, the Opposite Party  took up almost the same  and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections.  Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2  to Ex.C 24  and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Chief Manager Ex.OP1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP10 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       The complainant has submitted his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and contended that complainant approached the Opposite Party  for the advancement of car loan and accordingly, the  loan application was submitted to the Opposite Party  by the complainant and after verifying the documents of the complainant, the loan of Rs.2,60,000/- was sanctioned to the complainant on 26.5.2006 vide lona account No.ULP1638 with interest payable @ 8% per annum in equal 60 monthly installments, which the complainant has already paid so far. It was agreed by the complainant to pay monthly equally installments of Rs.5272/- (including principal and interest amount) for 60 months to the Opposite Party. As per the terms of the loan agreement, 60 undated cheques amounting to Rs.5272/- each were handed over by the complainant to the Opposite Party  bearing Nos.298291 to 298300 and 448151 to 448200 amounting to Rs.5272/- issued in favour of the Opposite Party  each drawn upon Corporation Bank, Branch Lawrence Road, Amritsar and the same were cleared in time on its presentation and last cheque was cleared by the banker of the complainant on 15.7.2011. As such, the complete loan amount with interest was duly paid by the complainant to the Opposite Party  and nothing  was due against the complainant. Copy of account statement, cheques payment details are attached. After clearance of all the payments and clearance of the loan account, the complainant  asked the Opposite Party  to issue No Due Certificate so that hypothecation be cancelled from the concerned department after submitting No due Certificate. But after passing long time,  the Opposite Party  stated that there is outstanding loan amount in the account of the complainant and when the complainant has objected for the same and asked them to provide the complete detail and the same was also not provided to the complainant by the Opposite Party. But instead of issuing the No Due Certificate, the guarantor of the complainant, received the summons from the Opposite Party  of some suit for recovery of Rs.81,516/- filed against the complainant and his guarantor by the Opposite Party. After appearing in the court in the suit filed by the Opposite Party, the complainant visited the Opposite Party  and shown his bank statement proving that the loan amount alongwith interest has already been paid by the complainant to the Opposite Party  and requested the Opposite Party  to issue No Due Certificate and to withdraw the proceedings before the Hon’ble Court, but the Opposite Party  refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. In this way, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party  and the complainant is facing harassment, agony, tension due to such mal practice, Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Party and deficiency is writ large on the part of the Opposite Party.  

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the fact of matter is that the complainant was sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,60,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum to be returned to 60 instalments. At that time of advancement of the loan to the complainant the rate of interest was 8% per annum and it is itself mentioned in the loan application as well as letter of hypothecation to the term loan that the complainant will abide by the revised additional terms and conditions of the bank which may at any time thereafter be made while the loan obtained by the complainant is still binding in the year 2006. The rate of interest was increased/ enhanced from 8% per annum to 13% per annum and the complainant has confirming the balance and interest time to time. Thereafter, the Opposite Party  also issued notices from time to time confirming the revised additional terms and contiions of the loan, but the complainant did not bother for the same and thereafter, the Opposite Party  also served loan for the balance outstanding amount from the complainant of Rs.81,516/- including of interest till 31.7.2014, but the complainant did not comply with the same and thereafter, the Opposite Party  filed the recovery suit in the Civil Court and the same is pending and the complainant has to abide by the additional terms and conditions between the complainant and the Opposite Party and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

8.       It is not disputed that the complainant availed the car loan of Rs.2,60,000/- from the Opposite Party  to be paid in 60 monthly equal instalments alongwith interest @ 8% per annum worth monthly instalment of Rs.5272/-, copy of cheque statement in which 60 cheques bearing numbers and dates duly filled is placed on record as Ex.C4 and Ex.C5. Copy of the bank statement showing clearing the instalments of Rs.5272/- from time to time furnished by the Opposite Party  to the complainant as per bank record, is also placed on record as Ex.C6 to Ex.C12 of Corporation Bank. Copy of transfer of amount of Rs.2,60,000/- in the loan account of the complainant is produced on record as Ex.C13. Application cum appraisal/ sanctioned letter is Ex.C14. The very important documents i.e. letter of hypothecation to secure term loan produced on record is Ex.C19. Perusal of this document shows that the Opposite Party  itself filled the rate of interest as 8% per annum with quarterly rests at various places. All these documents duly proves that the complainant had duly agreed to repay the loan amount alongwith interest @ 8% per annum and on the other hand, the Opposite Party had got 60  undated cheques amounting to Rs.5272/- each from the  complainant bearing Nos.298291 to 298300 and 448151 to 448200 amounting to Rs.5272/- duly issued in favour of the Opposite Party  each drawn upon Corporation Bank, Branch Lawrence Road, Amritsar and the same were cleared in time on its presentation and last cheque was cleared by the banker of the complainant on 15.7.2011. It means the Opposite Party  has sanctioned the loan to the complainant at the fixed rate of 8% per annum with quarterly rests and hence took 60 cheques duly filled worth Rs.5272/- per month and now at this stage, the Opposite Party  can not claim the inflated rate of interest  on the basis of some terms and conditions which were never conveyed to the complainant. Moreover, as per the version, if the complainant ever agreed to pay the loan amount alongwith inflated rate of interest (and not fixed rate of interest), then what was the need for the Opposite Party  to get 60 cheques duly filled worth Rs.5272/- per month from the complainant and which were duly encashed by the Opposite Party  as per their own statement, copies of which are produced on record by the complainant. And now the Opposite Party  is referring some terms and conditions which are not applicable and such version of the Opposite Party to claim the inflated rate of interest from the complainant can not be admitted as correct. Hence, there is certainly deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

9.       In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Opposite Party  to issue the ‘No Due Certificate’ of the loan account, to the complainant.  Opposite Party  is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant on account compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment besides Rs.2000/- as costs of litigation. Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party  within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum