CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No. 335/2009

SH. AMAN BAJAJ,

24, DEEP PLAZA, OPP. DISTRICT COURTS,

GURGAON-122001.

                                                                                                      ………. Complainant

                                                                        Vs.

RELIANCE CONSUMER FINANCE,

260-261, TRIBHUVAN COMPLEX,

ISHWAR NAGAR, NEW DELHI.

…………..Opposite party

                                                                                                Date of Order: 06.07.2017

O R D E R

Ritu Garodia-Member

            The complaint pertains to loan agreement between the parties. The complainant states that loan was taken from OP on 31.08.2007 for the period of 60 months vide loan A/c No. RLNCDEL000015122. It is submitted that loan account number was changed. It is further contended that the equated monthly installment was enhanced to Rs.7747/- from Rs.7730/-. This fact came to the knowledge of complainant only in June, 2008. It is further stated that the loan was disbursed only in November, 2007 and EMI of Rs.7730/- each for October and November 2007 were unjustifiably deducted from the complainant’s account. The complainant has annexed the statement of account dated 22.07.2008. The complainant has also annexed temporary registration certificate which was issued on 05.09.2007, permanent registration certificate dated 11.10.2007 and letter by OP giving details of loan amount and, EMI to be paid by complainant.

            OP in its reply has stated that the loan was given to the complainant vide account No. RLNCDEL000034951. It is stated that the vehicle which was booked earlier was not available with the concerned dealer and loan was rebooked with the new account number. As the rate of interest @ 14.50 has changed in two months, the EMI was increased to Rs.7,747/-. The said loan was disbursed on 07.07.2011 and the first EMI was to be paid in the month of December, 2007. Thereafter, OP adjusted the extra EMIs paid by the complainant in the new loan account.

            Both the parties have submitted their contentions supported by sworn affidavits.

            It is admitted by OP that loan was given earlier on account No.   RLNCDEL000015122 and was rebooked vide another loan account No. RLNCDEL000034951. It has been imputed by OP that the vehicle was not available at the first instance and there was rebooking of the loan and hence, change the account number. However, OP has not annexed any agreement vide which loan was renewed. Letter by OP which has not been denied is reproduced as under:-

            Your loan has been booked on 31/08/2007 as per following details :

            Loan Amount (Rs.)               329266

            Tenor (Months)                     60

            EMI (Rs.)                                7730

            EMI Due Date                       05/10/2007

 This letter clearly shows that EMI was to start from 05.10.2007 of Rs. 7730/-. The same is corroborated by statement of account issued by the bank where first EMI have been deducted on 05.10.2007. OP has also contended that vehicle was not available and same was rebooked though no documentary proof is adduced. On the other hand, complainant has placed a temporary registration certificate dated 05.09.2007 which is in consonance with letter by OP wherein loan was finalized on 31.08.2007. There is no question of rebooking the vehicle in November/ December.

The statement of account dated 22.07.2008 clearly shows that Rs.7,730/- has been deducted twice from the loan amount on 05.10.2007 and 05.11.2007. The same statement of account shows that date of disbursement is 07.11.2007 for 60 monthly EMIs from 10.12.2007 onwards. The account number is changed to RLNCDEL000034951 and installment to Rs.7,747/-.

It is apparent from statement of account

1. Two EMIs dated 05.10.2007 and 05.11.2007 had been charged before disbursed.
2. EMIs has been increased to Rs.7,747/- from Rs.7,730/- without any agreement or intimation to complainant.

The OP insurance company have indulged in unethical practices and have increased the amount mentioned in EMI by a sum of Rs.17/- for sixty months. The facts clearly demonstrate that the loan was given at a rate of interest which was subsequently increased without intimation. OP had no intention of honouring the initial agreement.

Hence, we find OP guilty of gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and direct it to refund

1. Rs. 15,460/- (7730 x 2) along with  9% interest from date of filing.
2. Rs. 1020/- (17 x 60) along with 9% interest from date of filing.

We also direct OP to pay a compensate of Rs.10,000/- towards harassment caused due to unfair trade practice, inclusive of litigation expenses.

Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof.  The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

       (D.R TAMTA)                     (RITU GARODIA)                                   (A.S YADAV)

MEMBER                              MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT