Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                    Complaint No. : 183

                                                                    Instituted on     : 09.03.2021

                                                                    Decided on      : 12.07.2023

Manjeet Kumar aged-53 years son of Jagdish Rai, Panna Chhajyan, Ward No. 10, Beri District, Jhajjar

                                                                             ………..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., near Appu Ghar Complex, Upper Storey Indusind Bank, Rohtak through its Manager/Authorized person.

                                                                  ……….Opposite party.

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:       Sh. Karun Bhardwaj, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he is registered owner of the vehicle Hero Honda HF Delux bearing registration no.HR-77-9551 and the same was financed with the opposite party for an amount of Rs.51,400/- on 28.11.2018 vide agreement dated 28.11.2018. The complainant had to repay the aforesaid financed amount in 23 monthly installments of Rs.2834/- each. He used to pay the amount of installments through his Bank account no. 3233101005763. At the time of finance the aforesaid amount the official of the opposite party had kept the five blank signed cheques bearing number 616861 to 616865 by saying that they shall not misuse these cheques and to return the same to the complainant. The complainant has paid the amount of 15 installments to the opposite party regularly. But due to Covid-19 and illness of mother of the complainant, job of the complainant was left. For this reason, complainant could not pay the amount of installment while as per guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India i.e. Bank and Finance Company was restrained to recover the amount of loan installment but the opposite party did not follow the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. It is further submitted that Sandeep, the Authorized agent of opposite party has collected the amount of eight installments of Rs.3334/- each from the complainant but he only deposited five installments of Rs.2834/- each only with the opposite party. The complainant has paid almost of loan amount but the opposite party without giving any intimation to the complainant used to present the blank signed cheque of complainant by misusing the same in the bank and to dishonor the same with its oblique motive. Bank also used to deduct the charges from the Bank account of complainant. The manager of the opposite party namely Ashok Kumar provided his Bank Account number 919010044303716 to the complainant to pay the amount. On that, complainant deposited an amount of Rs.5700/- in the said account. But the opposite party also adjusted this amount in misc. charges. The complainant visited to the opposite party and asked about the remaining due of his loan amount, then official of the opposite party demanded Rs.39,300/-. Complainant raised objection on the same and requested the official of the opposite party to charge the actual amount and to adjust the amount paid to its authorized agent but the officials of the opposite party refused to pay any heed towards request of the complainant. As such, the act and conduct of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to provide the statement of loan account of the complainant with actual loan amount to enable the complainant to settle the loan account, to adjust the whole amount paid by the complainant and not to charge any extra amount from the complainant. It is also prayed opposite parties be directed not to take forcible custody of financed vehicle from the complainant and not to misused the blank signed cheques and to return the same to him, not to charge interest during the period of Covid-19 Pandemic from the complainant and on clearance of the loan amount to issue NOC in favour of the complainant. Further opposite party be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.22,000/- as litigation charges as explained in  relief clause to the complainant.    

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that complainant has availed a financial loan from the opposite party and executed a loan agreement in favour of the opposite party after understanding all the terms and conditions of loan agreement. As and when the payment has been made to the opposite party either cash/cheque to the authorized person of the opposite party, receipt is always issued. The complainant has admitted that he had obtained a loan from the opposite party and he was liable to pay the amount of monthly installments as per repayment schedule. But the complainant failed to maintain the financial discipline. Out of 23 installments payable by the complainant, the complainant started to commit default just after availing the loan facilities. His various installments were bounced. Even during the moratorium period he failed to make compliance of the same. His most of installments were bounced, hence he has become liable to pay installments/cheque bouncing charges including the overdue amount for defaulting period. As per statement of account the complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.43813.81 as on 22.06.2021. The complainant has alleged that he has paid an amount of Rs.33084/- to one Sandeep Kumar, alleged authorized agent. But no date, month and year has been given in respect of the alleged payment. There is no employee of having name Sandeep in collection for the last 2-3 years.  Further the complainant was not supposed to handover any amount in cash without any proper receipt. The complainant offered to deposit the amount of Rs.5700/- in account of Ashok Kumar Manager and on the deposit of the aforesaid amount, the said amount was deposited in the loan account of the borrower and a receipt of the aforesaid amount was sent to the complainant on the same day. It is wrong to say that the aforesaid amount has been adjusted towards the head of misc. charges only. In case of default and delay in making the payment of amount of installment, the complainant is liable to pay bouncing charges in case of bouncing of installment and penalty charges also. The complainant is not absolute owner unless and until he discharged his whole liability towards the opposite party. The vehicle is hypothecated in favour of the opposite party. Complainant failed to maintain sufficient balance in his account and due to which his various installments were bounced due to insufficient funds. It is denied that alleged five cheques were taken by the opposite party. As per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India is concerned the benefit of moratorium was to be given who covered under the Policy, but the complainant even failed to make the payment as per the circular of the RBI or benefit of moratorium. It is denied for knowledge that the complainant paid the amount of Rs.33034/- to one Sandeep, alleged authorized agent of the opposite party or that he deposited the amount of five installments only. The opposite party has rightly demanded the amount from the complainant as the loan liability of the complainant has not been discharged by him. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.                Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed his evidence on dated 29.10.2021. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 to Ex. R11 and closed his evidence on 02.02.2022.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                Perusal of document Ex.R6 page no.5 shows that initially a loan amount of Rs.51400/- has been advanced. Processing fee of Rs.2123/- was also charged from the complainant regarding the loan amount and interest has been calculated as Rs.13782/- i.e. the total amount comes to Rs.65182/-.  The complainant was to repay the loan amount in 23 installments and first installments was to be paid on 07.01.2019 and remaining 22 installments were to be paid by the complainant from 07.02.2019 to 07.11.2020. As per complainant he was paying the installments regularly and some installments have been taken from him by  the agent of the opposite party. He further submitted that agent collected an amount of Rs.3334/- each  installments from the complainant and he paid the same to the agent of the respondent. In the written statement it has been submitted by the respondent that no agent namely Sandeep was working in their company. But respondent failed to place on record any list of employees before this Commission to prove the same.  Meaning thereby Sandeep was working as collection agent on behalf of opposite party. He received amount of 3 installments amounting to Rs.3334/- each from the complainant. Complainant raised an objection before the respondent but no action has been taken by the respondent finance company. Moreover it has been admitted by the respondent that an amount of Rs.5700/- has been deposited in the account of Ashok Kumar Manager of the finance company. Meaning thereby the respondent insurance company was collecting the installment amount  with  different means i.e. they accepted the amount in the account of Manager, collected the amount through agent, through cheque or cash. Here, there is a grave deficiency in service on the part of agent. He should deposit the amount in the loan account of complainant which has been maintained by the complainant in the finance company.  When there is a relation of master and servant between the two parties, the master is liable for each and every act of his servant. Hence the opposite party is liable for the act of his agent. Moreover, the perusal of Ex.R7 shows that the installments have been enhanced from 23 to 31 without any notice. As per our opinion the finance company or bank should gave a notice to their customers if they enhance the tenure of the loan amount and also gave reason  why the tenure has been enhanced from 23 installments to 31 installments. But in the present case no such notice has been given by the opposite party and as such there is grave deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  Perusal of the documents shows that the total amount of Rs.65182/- was to be repaid by the complainant to the bank. As per Ex.R7 & Ex.R12, the complainant had already paid an amount of Rs.41353/- upto 22.06.2021. Hence the complainant is liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs.23829/-(Rs.65182/- less Rs.41353/-) to the opposite parties and on the other hand, opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant on account of deficiency in service caused by the opposite party.

7.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.20000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant and to adjust the alleged amount of Rs.25000/- in the loan account of complainant in lump-sum and to clear the loan amount of complainant. As such nothing is payable by the complainant. Hence opposite party is further directed to issue NOC in favour of the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.

8.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

12.07.2023.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                                        Vijender Singh, Member.