CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/189/18

          Date of Institution:-    03.05.2018

          Order Reserved on:- 19.01.2024

                         Date of Decision:-      25.10.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Shankar Mahto

R/o House No.69, Sector-8,

R. K. Puram, New Delhi - 110022

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. Raj Electronics

D-9, Mohan Singh Market, Sector-6,

R K Puram, New Delhi – 110022

2. M/s Home Credit India Directions

Registered & Corporate Office 3^rd 

DLF Cyber City Phase-2,

Gurgaon, HR-122002

…..Opposite Parties

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations that he has purchased voltas SAC 175 EYR, V-guard stab-4kva orient cooler CP 200 2H and AC stand for a sum of Rs.47900/- vide bill no.1666 dated 23.05.2015 from OP-1 by paying Rs.8000/- in cash and balance amount of Rs.39848/- was financed by OP-2 which was repayable in 8 instalments of Rs.4981/- each. The OP has mentioned nine instalments as ninth instalment was a security instalment in case any instalment remains unpaid. He has paid 6 instalments of Rs.4981 each from 24.08.2015 – 31.12.2015 and on 29.01.2016. The two instalments were paid through ECS on 22.06.2015 and 22.07.2015. He has paid Rs.47848/- in all. The OP-2 has not issued the NOC and closed the account despite receipt of entire payment. The OP-2 has issued a notice dated 28.04.2016 to pay ninth instalment. The OP-2 has also issued another notice dated 05.05.2016 and thereafter started threatening him on telephone. He has sent a mail dated 07.09.2017 to OP-2 to provide NOC and to close the loan account but in vain. Hence, this complaint.

2. The OP-1 did not appear despite service and accordingly proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 23.08.2018.

3. The OP-2 has filed the written statement to the effect that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on its part. The complainant is trying to avoid the payment under the garb of present complaint. On 22.05.2015, the complainant has approached OP-2 for a loan of Rs.39999/- and filled application form for the purchase of AC. The loan was sanctioned vide separate sanction letter. The amount was repayable in 9 EMI from 22.06.2015-22.02.2016. The complainant has signed the sanction letter after reading the same. A scheme was offered to the complainant that last monthly payment would be waived off subject to the timely payment of all monthly payments in accordance with point no.17 of the sanction letter. The ECS mandate form was issued to the banker of the complainant. The ECS mandate was honoured for 22.06.2015 and 22.07.2015 but it was not honoured for 22.08.2015 and 22.09.2015 and mandate form was returned back with remarks “insufficient funds”. The complainant has made the payment on 24.08.2015 and 25.09.2015 in cash. The complainant has not made timely payment of instalment of August, September, November and December, 2015 and that of January 2016. The last instalment remained unpaid. The complainant was to pay nine instalments in terms of application form as well as sanction letter. A legal notice dated 28.04.2016 was issued as complainant did not make the payment. The conciliation proceedings were initiated by OP-2 but complainant did not take any interest. There is no deficiency of service.

4. The complainant has filed their rejoinder wherein he has reiterated the stand taken in the complaint and denied the averments made in the written statement.

5. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.

6. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents Annexure-1- 4.

7. The OP-2 has filed the affidavit of Sh.RajatGoel, in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of written statement and placed reliance on the documents Ex.R2/1-7.

8. We have heard the complainant and AR of the OP-2 and perused the entire material on record.

9. The purchase of Air Conditioner and advancement of loan Rs.39999/- on it by OP-2 are not in dispute.

10. The question that needs consideration is whether complainant was to pay 8 instalments or 9 instalments or whether ninth instalment was to be waived off in case complainant pays monthly instalment in time in terms of point no.17 of the sanctioned letter.

11. The complainant has filed an application form Annexure-2 for the sanction of loan and handed over to OP-2. The application form shows that complainant has applied for loan amount of Rs.39,999/-. The details show that loan amount is repayable in 9 instalment of Rs.4981/- each. The sanction letter Annexure-3 shows that the loan amount of Rs.39999/- was sanctioned which was repayable in 9 instalment of Rs.4981/ each. The clauses are printed on the sanctioned letter. The clause 17 shows that if the borrower pays all monthly instalment in time i.e. on or before the due date then the last monthly instalment will be waived off subject to the compliance by the borrower of the general terms and conditions of sanctioned letter. The sanction letter bears the signature of complainant. Anneure-4 is the ECS mandate form signed by the complainant. All these documents have been signed by the complainant. The complainant cannot say that he is not bound by the documents signed by him. The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions as shown in the sanction letter. The application form and sanction letter clearly shows that loan amount is repayable in 9 instalments so the plea of the complainant that amount was repayable in 8 instalment is without any merits.

12.  The complainant was supposed to make the payment of instalment on or before due date to avail the benefit of the waiver off ninth instalment. The ECS mandate for 22.08.2015 and 22.09.2015 was not honoured because the balance was insufficient in the account of the complainant as clear from Annexure-5 and 6 filed by the OP-2. The cash payment for the instalment payable on 22.08.2015 was paid on 24.08.2015 and that of 22.09.2015 on 25.09.2015. The payment was not in time. The instalment due on 22.11.2015 was paid on 30.11.2015 and that of 22.01.2016 on 29.01.2016. The instalments were not paid in time so complainantis not entitled for the waiver off ninth instalment in terms of clause 17 of the sanction letter.

13. The complainant has to pay all the 9 instalment instead of 8 instalment as alleged by him. The OP-2 has rightly demanded the ninth instalment for which there is no deficiency of service.

14. The complainant has failed to show that he has to pay 8 instalments. The complainant has failed to advance his own case. No deficiency of service is found on the part of OP-2.

15. In view of our aforesaid discussion, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 25.10.2024.