Complaint filed on: 05.05.2016
Complaint Disposed on:07.10.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.56/2016
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF OCTOMBER 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT/S:
Nasir Pasha S/o Vazeer Sab,
Aged about 45 years,
Lorry Driver-Owner,
R/o Kottanagere Street,
Belur, Hassan District.
(By Sri/Smt. I.S.Thejasvi, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT/S:
Sri Ram Transport Finance
Company Ltd., 1st floor,
Rangarao Towers, I.G.Road,
Chikmagalur-577101.
Represented by its Branch Manager.
(OP - By Sri/Smt. Hareesh Singatagere, Advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP alleging deficiency in service in not furnishing the statement of loan account, not charging the interest as per the RBI rules and also attempting to seize the vehicle belongs to the complainant bearing registration No.KA-16/A-8609. Hence, prays for direction against Op to not to seize the vehicle and also to issue statement of loan account along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant has availed financial assistance from Op in order to purchase the TATA LPT 1613 Lorry bearing registration No.KA-16/A-8609 in the month of November 2012. Accordingly, Op provided a loan of Rs.4,50,000/- through its Chikmagalur branch and complainant executed the hire purchase agreement vide agreement No.CKM GR O 211240008 and complainant also agreed to repay the loan in equal monthly installments of Rs.14,954/- under 48 installments. The complainant after obtaining the loan had nearly paid Rs.3,56,000/- till date and Op also issued the receipts in this regard. Even complainant also paid some amount to the agents of the Op, but some receipts are misplaced.
The Op made several attempts in order to seize the vehicle of the complainant for one or other reasons, for which complainant resisted by showing the receipts issued by Op company, in the meantime the complainant also upgraded his vehicle by spending nearly Rs.2,00,000/-. If the agents of the Op seizes the vehicle without any valid reason and illegally the complainant suffers loss and in-convenience. Whenever the agents of the Op Company approached the complainant have demanded for payment and forced the complainant to sign several papers stating that the loan needs renewal. The complainant being the innocent do not know about the tricks of the Op and signed the papers.
The complainant later in order to clear the entire loan and to cancel the hypothecation agreement had approached the Op to give final balance amount due under loan, for which Op had demanded for Rs.6,50,000/- without giving any actual balance sheet towards loan. Inspite of repeated requests also Op failed to furnish the actual balance sheet of the loan account of the complainant. Finally, complainant issued a legal notice dated:28.03.2016 and called upon the Op to furnish the account statement of loan account of the complainant. Even inspite of receipt of the legal notice Op not complied the notice, even not replied to the said notice. The complainant on enquiry came to know that they are demanding for Rs.6,50,000/- without any basis. The Op without providing the loan statement has demanded the said amount illegally and attempted to seize the vehicle. Hence, Op rendered unfair trade practice and deficiency in service in not furnishing the statement of loan account and also attempting to seize the vehicle of the complainant through their agents.
Op is demanding excess amount from the complainant under the loan account in order to gain wrongfully.
Complainant further alleges that Op is not following the guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India in charging the interest on loan, the interest charged by Op is much higher that the approved rate of interest, according to RBI guidelines the rate of interest is 14% whereas this Op is charging 36% on OD amount for the delayed payment illegally. Hence, Op rendered unfair trade practice in charging the excess rate of interest.
The Op on 02.04.2016 had sent the seizing agents to the complainant and threatened him to seize the vehicle, the act of the Op amounts to unfair trade practice, if the vehicle of the complainant is going to be seized the complainant unable to do his livelihood and suffers great hardship. Hence, prays for direction against Op to not to seize the vehicle and also direction against Op to issue loan statement and charging interest as per the RBI guidelines along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- as prayed above.
3. After service of notice Op appeared through his counsel and filed version and contended that this Op company is incorporated under Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at 2nd floor, Mukambika complex, No.4, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Chennai-04 and branch office at K.M.Road, Chikmagalur city.
The complainant has entered into hypothecation/loan agreement dated 26.11.2012 with this Op and availed loan of Rs.4,50,000/- for purchase of transport vehicle and also agreed to pay 48 monthly installments. As per the said agreement the complainant had to repay the loan amount of Rs.4,50,000/- along with interest of Rs.2,71,895/- and accordingly complainant had paid first installment of Rs.17,953/- and the balance 47 installments is Rs.14,978/-, but complainant was not regular in paying the installments towards loan.
After obtaining the said loan the complainant also availed another loan of Rs.29,000/- under agreement dated:16.01.2013 for purchase of the tyre and also agreed to repay the said loan in 4 installments. The complainant totally had paid Rs.3,52,300/- till this day and is in due of Rs.6,81,190/- as on 27.06.2016.
The complainant is abide by terms and conditions of the hypothecation agreement and as per the clause 6 of the agreement this Op has got right to re-possess the vehicle in case any default in paying the loan as per clause 5 of the said agreement and as per the clause 15 of the said agreement this Op has referred the dispute against complainant to the Arbitrator one Sri.B.K.Vishwanatha, Advocate, Hassan city for recovery of the loan amount due from complainant. Hence, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of this Op and prays for dismissal of the complaiant.
4. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. Op also filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP?
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Negative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
8. The case of the complainant is that, he had availed a loan of Rs.4,50,000/- in the month of November 2012 for purchase of TATA LPT 1613 Lorry bearing registration No.KA-16/A-8609 and complainant also executed hypothecation/loan agreement after obtaining the loan, the same is produced by Op is marked as Ex.R.1. Further complainant in his affidavit has sworn that he had repaid the loan up to Rs.3,56,000/-, inspite of that payment Op is attempting to seize the vehicle and also demanding for payment of exorbitant amount of Rs.6,50,000/-, when he demanded for actual loan statement Op denied to furnish the loan statement and attempted to seize the vehicle through their agents. Further complainant also sworn that Op is charging interest on the loan against the RBI guidelines. Hence, alleges deficiency in service.
9. The complainant produced nearly 26 receipts to show that he has paid the loan to the tune of Rs.3,56,000/- marked as Ex.P.3 and also produced legal notice marked as Ex.P.4. Apart from that the complainant has not produced any relevant documents to show that Op is charging exorbitant rate of interest. Further more on perusal of the documents produced by Op we noticed that complainant had availed another loan of Rs.29,000/- for purchase of the tyre and executed loan agreement. On perusal of the loan agreement dated 26.11.2012 the complainant has agreed the terms and conditions of the loan and signed the agreement at the time of taking a loan marked as Ex.R.1 in the said agreement we noticed that the rate of interest is 15.10% per annum to be computed to the monthly raised on out-standing balance. Hence, the plea taken by complainant that the Op is charging exorbitant rate of interest on the loan is not acceptable.
On perusal of the statement of loan account which is marked as Ex.R.2 we noticed complainant is not regular in paying the installments towards the loan, for which Op has initiated the arbitration case against the complainant in case No.470/2016 marked as Ex.R.3. The complainant has not explained before this Forum that whether he was appeared before arbitration or not.
10. On observing the above said facts we are of the opinion that there is no any deficiency in service on the part of Op as alleged by complainant. The statement of loan account is produced before this Forum by Op marked as Ex.R.2, the complainant is at liberty to obtain the certified copies for the purpose of verification. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 7th day of October 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant/S:
Ex.P.1 - ‘B’ extract of the vehicle.
Ex.P.2 - Payment schedule.
Ex.P.3 - 26 cash receipts.
Ex.P.4 - Office copy of the legal notice.
Ex.P.5 - Postal Ack. due.
Documents produced on behalf of the OP/S:
Ex.R.1 - Original loan/hypothecation agreement.
Ex.R.2 - Statement of loan account.
Ex.R.3 - Certified copy of Arbitration Case.
Ex.R.4 - Copy of GPA.
Dated:07.10.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA
