Karnataka

Kolar

CC/151/2023

Sri.Sanjay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shiram Finance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

DeepaKumari.N

29 Apr 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing: 22/12/2023

Date of Order:29/04/2024

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

Dated:29^th DAY OF APRIL 2024

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:151/2023

 

Sri. Sanjay Kumar,

S/o. Ramakrishna,

Aged about 48 years,

R/at Barandahalli Village,

Arahalli Post, Kolar Taluk,

Kolar District.

(Rep. by Deepa kumari. N, Advocate)               ….  Complainant.

 

                                                                                                                - V/s –

Shriram Finance Company Limited.

No.174/1, 1^st Floor,

Gokul Complex,

M.B. Road,

Kolar.

(Rep. by Sri. Ravichandra. R, Advocate)           ……Opposite Party.                                                                  

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

1. This is the complainant filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against OP and praying for directions to the OP not to deduct the amount towards the interest amount and to refund the deducted amount from the loan amount and to allow the complaint in the ends of justice.

 

2. The brief fact of the complaint is that, the complainant had obtained the loan amount of Rs.8,70,000/- in the month of December 2019 by paying Rs.1,20,000/- towards down payment in order to purchase the Mahindra Bolero Pickup Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-07-B-1586. It is stated that, the complainant is paying regular EMIs to an extent of Rs.18,000/- per month for the period of 4 years since the date of purchasing the vehicle.  It is stated that, the period of EMI commencing from 05/01/2020 to 05/12/2024.  The complainant states that, during the pandemic days of Covid-19 complainant was unable to pay the loan installment properly due to complainant was not having any job.  Further complainant stated that, after the clearness of Covid-19 days he use to pay the regular  installments to the Op, but the Op has adjusting the said amount towards interest for the balance amount not paid during the Covid-19 days.  It is stated that, though the complainant requested the Op not to deducted the loan installments towards the interest amount, but the Op continuously deducting the amount and the adjust the said amount towards the interest and thereby complainant requested the Op to refund the interest amount deducted in the loan amount.  Further stated that, Op issued the notice to the complainant on 04/12/2022 demanding to pay an amount of Rs.7,14,015.18/- and the complainant also got issued the notice to the Op and the Op also given the reply to the said notice.  Further stated that, OP demanding to pay sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- and it shows malafide intention of the Op to grab the money from the complainant.  Hence this complaint.

 

3. Upon admission of complaint and on issuance of notice, OP appeared through his counsel and filed its version.

 

4. In the version of OP it is contended that, complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law.  Further contended that, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint due to Arbitration clause in the loan agreement.  It is contended that, the complainant is not a consumer.  Further contended that, the complainant was approached the OP and requested for financial assistance for purchase of Mahindra Bolero Pick up vehicle under the agreement dated 26/11/2019 with 48 monthly installments and accordingly Op granted the loan amount of Rs 6,20,000/- and agreed to pay interest of Rs.2,27,010/- and accordingly complainant executed the  all necessary loan documents including loan cum hypothecation agreement and agreed to repay the said loan amount within 48 installments.  It is contended that, the complainant did not repay the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.  It is contended that the complainant was also enter with another agreement dated 26/08/2020 under the scheme of ECLGS (emergence credit loan guarantee scheme) with 48 installments.  It is contended that, complainant is due amount of Rs.7,21,152/- as on the day and totally the complainant has to pay balance amount of Rs.7,78,332/-. But the complainant opted contrary to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.  Further contended that, complainant purchased the vehicle and using for commercial purposes and earning from the said vehicle but intentionally avoiding to pay the arrears of loan amount and even after, Covid-19 days complainant was not paying regular EMIs.  But the complainant misused the directions of the guidelines of the RBI, but the RBI permitted to additional time to pay arrears of amount and the OP has granted additional time to complainant to pay, but even after he had never paid any amount.

 

5. It is further contended that, the loan amount of Shriram Transport Company is accumulated by the customers and same is also issued to the customers who need of money to their help, as such company is also responsible for other customers and also answerable to their money who invested at Company.  Hence the company taking some actions towards the loan amount under due procedure of law as the complainant is not followed the procedure as per the loan agreement.  Finally on the above said grounds OP prays to dismiss the complaint with cost.

 

6. In order to prove the case of the parties and both parties filed their affidavit evidence.

 

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points will do arise for our consideration.

 

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer and the complaint is comes under the domain of the C.P. Act 2019?
2.  Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service on the part of the Op for deducting the amount towards interest?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint?
4. What Order?

 

We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the evidence placed on record.

Our answers to the above points as under:

Point No. (1):-            In the Affirmative.

Point No. (2) & (3):-    In the Negative.

Point No. (4):-             As per the final orders

                                 for the following

                        

 

                                     REASONS

 

8. Point No.(1):-  On perusal of the pleadings of the parties it is not in disputes that, the complainant himself approached the OP Shriram Finance Company Limited and barrowed the loan amount of Rs.6,20,000/- during the year 2019 and the complainant agreed to repay the loan amount along with interest within 48 installments.  Further it is not in dispute that, the complainant executed the all the necessary loan documents including hypothecation agreement infavour of the complainant.  Further it is not in dispute that, the complainant was unable to repay the regular EMIs during the Pandemic period and he is at default and to saturate the due amount he has availed another loan of amount of Rs.1,20,000/- and accordingly executed another agreement in favour of the OP.

 

9. That the complainant himself admitted that, due to Covid-19 days he has no job and thereby he was unable to pay the regular installments and whatever the loan installments he had paid to the OP, but the OP adjusted the amount to the interest which leads to filing of the present complaint.  The contention of the OP is that, the complainant is not a consumer and complaint will not come under the domain of the C.P.Act 2019 due to existence of arbitration clause in the loan agreement.

 

On analyzing the facts of the case in the light of definition of service, on reading section 2(42) reads thus “Service means service on any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with Banking, Financing, Insurance, Transport, Processing, Supply of Electrical or other energy, telecom, Boarding or lodging or both, Housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news and other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”.

 

10. That the Financing obviously comes under the domain of the C.P. Act, the relation between the complainant and OP is, the complainant is the borrower and the OP is a service provider, hence complainant is a consumer and the complaint is comes under the domain of the C.P. Act.  Further the OP raised the question of arbitration proceedings, on perusal of the letter arbitration case No.685/2024 the notice of arbitration issued to the complainant on 15/02/2024, admittedly arbitration notice issued subsequent to filing of the complaint and during midst of the proceedings and still not complainant was not participated in the arbitration proceedings.  Further seeking remedy before this Commission is an additional remedy it is already settled position of law by the various decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission as well as the Apex Court hold that, it is an option given to the consumer either he can move to the consumer Commission or to the arbitration proceedings and thereon, it is not contrary to any law in bringing the present complaint to this Commission.  Accordingly we answered the Point No.(1) in the Affirmative.

 

11. Point No.(2) & (3):-   On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence placed on record and we are of the opinion that these two points are interlinked to each other and in order to avoid repetition of discussion of facts and for the sake brevity these points will taken up together for common discussion.

 

12. It is an admitted fact that, the complainant had borrowed the loan amount of Rs.6,20,000/- from the OP in order to purchase the Bolero Pickup Vehicle bearing registration No. KA-07-B-1586 Further it is also not in dispute that, the complainant had executed all the necessary loan documents and hypothecated the vehicle in favour of the OP.  Further the complainant agreed to repay the loan amount with interest as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.  It is worth to note that; complainant himself admitted that, he was irregular in paying regular loan installments due to pandemic Covid-19.  This Commission having judicial notice of pandemic days but the complaint is filed on 22/12/2023 after the closing of pandemic days and after the period of 2 years, but the complainant has got sufficient time to repay the loan amount in order to saturate the things in order, whereas, the complainant did not place any evidence to show that, his bonofides towards paying regular installments.  It is worth to note that, a man seeks equity should do equity but on the basis of available evidence on record no iota of evidence produce before this court to demonstrate the bonobfide attempts of complainant in repaying the loan amount.  However, though parties couple of times tried to settled the matter amicably before the LokAdalat and due to reasons matter is not settled, on looking into the conditions of the complainant, the OP may is at liberty to give some relaxation in the interest part of the amount to the complainant as a goodwill of gesture and also the complainant is at liberty to participate in the arbitration proceedings initiated by the OP.

 

13. On foregoing reasons complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP and hence the complainant not entitled for relief as sought in the complaint.  Accordingly we answered the Point No. (2) & (3) in the Negative.

 

14. Point No. (4):- On the basis of discussion and reasons assigned while answering Point No.(2)&(3) and thereon we proceed to pass the following order:

 

6698606.  

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.  No order as to cost.
2. Send a copy of this order to all the parties to the proceedings at free of cost.

 

         (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 29^th DAY OF APRIL 2024)

 

 

        MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT