Tripura

StateCommission

A/30/2017

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Kakali Paul - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Dipankar Sharma, Sri. Pinak chowdhury

21 Jul 2017

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.30.2017

 

1. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd., (CHOLA)    
   Represented by the General Manager,
   Chola, Dare House, 1^st Floor, No.2,
   N.S.C. Bose Road, Parrys, 
   Chennai-600001.

 

2. Branch Manager,
   Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd.,
   Math Chowmuhani, College Road, Shibnagar, 
   P.O. Agartala College,
   West Tripura, Pin-799001.

 

3. Branch Manager,
   Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd.,
   1st Floor, Mukta Market,
   Opposite Co-operative Bank,
   Central Road, Udaipur, R.K. Pur,
   District - Gomati District-799120.

… … … … … Appellant/Opposite Parties.

•  

 

1. Smt. Kakali Paul,
   W/o Sri Sadhan Ch. Paul,
   Arjya Colony, P.O. & P.S. Belonia,
   South Tripura.

 

Present Address:

C/o Sri Dilip Majumder,

Ananya Complex, near Bangladesh Visa Office,

P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala, District - West Tripura.

… … … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

For the Appellants:                               Mr. Dipankar Sarma, Adv.

For the Respondent:                         Mr. Purushuttam Roy Barman, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment: 21.07.2017.

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha,J,

The instant appeal is filed by the three appellants, namely, Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd., represented by the General Manager, Chola, Dare House, 1st Floor, No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Parrys, Chennai; the Branch Manager, Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd., Math Chowmuhani, College Road, Shibnagar, Agartala and the Branch Manager, Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd., 1st Floor, Mukta Market, Opposite Co-operative Bank, Central Road, R.K. Pur, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties/Chola) under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment dated 27.04.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in case No. C.C. 20 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint petition filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant) directing the opposite parties to close the loan account on receipt of Rs.2,53,802/- from the complainant and pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation and litigation cost to the complainant. The amount is to be paid within one month, if not paid, it will carry interest and the direction is to be followed within one month. Opposite parties are also directed to return five numbers of blank cheques taken from the complainant, copy of the loan documents and the key of the car and stop realization of loan through EMI ECS permanently.    

2. Heard Mr. Dipankar Sarma, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant-opposite parties as well as Mr. Purushuttam Roy Barman, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-complainant.
3. As agreed by the Ld. Counsel of the parties, the instant appeal is taken up for final disposal at this order stage itself, as the records of the Ld. District Forum has already been received and the appeal was admitted earlier.
4. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The complainant Smt. Kakali Paul went to the Maruti Suzuki Showroom, Udaipur in the 1^st week of February 2016 for purchasing Maruti Vehicle, namely, Maruti Suzuki Wagon R. At the showroom of the Maruti Suzuki, the opposite party no.3, the Branch Manager of Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd., Udaipur was present and informed the complainant and her husband that the opposite party no.1 is willing to give loan below the interest rate of Bank for purchasing the Maruti Car and it is also stated that the loan can be repaid by easy installments. Accordingly, the loan agreement was signed by the complainant and opposite party no.3 started deduction of loan amount through EMI @ Rs.13,239/- per month. Loan amount Rs.3,73,000/- is to be repaid through 55 installments as per agreement. Complainant thereafter came to learn that excessive interest rate was imposed on her loan amount though the opposite parties assured to impose the interest @6%, but more than 16% interest was levied upon the loan amount. After knowing the fact that the opposite parties are charging 16% interest on the loan amount, the complainant wanted to pay the whole amount i.e. the outstanding loan amount at a time for getting relief from the liability of the loan. The opposite party no.3, Branch Manager of Chola, Udaipur Branch informed her that the outstanding balance would be Rs.2,98,074/-. In the meantime, she paid Rs.11,360/-. So, rest amount she wanted to pay at a time and accordingly sent a cheque of Rs.2,86,714/- in the name of opposite party no.1, Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. i.e. the main Branch of Cholamandalam at Chennai on 03.01.2017. But the opposite parties refused to encash the amount and continued the deduction of the EMI from the bank account of the complainant. As for the deficiency of service of the opposite parties, she suffered and harassed, she filed an application under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 before the Ld. District Forum.

5. Opposite parties appeared, filed their written statement denying the claim of the complainant and also raised objection regrading maintainability of the complaint petition on the ground that the dispute between the parties has to be decided through arbitration as per the agreement being there is an arbitration clause. It is also stated that the opposite parties deducted the amount by installments through ECS towards discharging the loan liability from the account of the complainant maintained with UBI. For one time settlement, she has to file application only for approval from the head office. The loan account cannot be finally settled without approval of the appropriate authority. But she did not approach the head office and approval not received. In spite of that, she wanted to pay the amount on her own calculation. Area Manager of Agartala Branch never interfered with that matter. Complainant, therefore, is not entitled to get any relief and thus the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Complainant produced the statement of account dated 04.03.2017 supplied by the opposite parties, agreement copy, loan application form, certificate of policy schedule in respect of insurance of the vehicle, power of attorney, e-mail, UBI passbook, cheque issued to the opposite parties, copy of statement and copy of the Insurance Policy. She also submitted her statement on affidavit and also the statement on affidavit of her husband Sri Sadhan Ch. Paul who were accordingly examined and cross-examined.
7. Opposite parties on the other hand produced the original cheque issued by the complainant, loan agreement form, agreement copy, power of attorney. Opposite parties also submitted the statement on affidavit of one Arindam Deb, authorized signatory of Cholamandalam Investment Company. 
8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties and evidence on record the Ld. District Forum held the following issues:-

1. Whether the opposite parties imposed high interest rate and not given proper service after releasing the loan?
2. Whether there was deficiency of service by the opposite parties and they are under obligation to pay compensation to the petitioner?

9. After hearing the parties on the aforesaid issues and considering the evidence on record, the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment. 
10. In its findings the District Forum stated, inter alia, that “It is admitted and established fact that loan of Rs.3,73,000/- was released in favour of the complainant. From the repayment schedule, it is found that in 55 installments the amount is to be repaid. Interest will be Rs.1,19,000/- in this period and principal Rs.3,73,000/-. Net amount Rs.5,42,573/- is to be paid in 55 installments on 25.09.2020 as last installment. 1^st installment Rs.13,239/- is to be paid on 25.03.16. From the scrutiny of the statement of account it is found that 13 installments was paid and total Rs.1,33,133/- was paid as per statement dated 04.03.17. Out of Rs.1,33,133/-, Rs.82,988/- was paid as principal and Rs.50,144/- was paid as interest.” The Ld. District Forum also had gone through the payment schedule as produced by the complainant. As per payment schedule, the payment of loan started from 25.03.2016. Installment amount was Rs.12,103/-. Out of that, principal was Rs.7,047/- and the interest was Rs.5,056/-. From the principal amount of Rs.3,73,000/-, Rs.7,047/- was deducted and closing principal comes to Rs.3,65,953/-. In this way, schedule payment by 55 installments were given. In the last installment, Rs.3,448/-was the installment amount. Principal was Rs.3,402/- and interest was Rs.46/- only. In this way, detailed payment process is given and last installment is to be given on 25.09.2020. Complainant wanted to close the loan payment after lapse of one year. She paid 13 installments and thereafter approached the opposite parties for finalization of her loan payment. She wanted to pay the whole principal amount at a time. Opposite parties told her that in case of pre-closure of the loan account she has to give advance notice before 21 days to the Company after complying formalities.
11.  The Ld. District Forum has also considered the Para-8 of the written statement wherein it is stated that she made the proposal for final payment and also made contact with the Agartala Branch of Cholamandalam. It is further stated that it is not possible for finance company to settle the loan amount only by paying principal amount. But it is not clarified that when the interest already paid and there is no claim for interest, only the principal remained unpaid, then why on payment of principal amount, the loan matter cannot be settled. 
12. Mr. Sarma, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-opposite parties submits that the opposite parties did not deduct interest @16% as contended by the complainant. He has also submitted that the complainant did not approach the appropriate authority for one time settlement except issuing the cheque for an amounting to Rs.2,86,714/-. He further submits that the opposite parties did not deduct any amount for the purpose of vehicle insurance i.e. amounting to Rs.11,360/- as mentioned by the Ld. District Forum. He has finally contended that the money, which was debited from the account of the complainant after the stay order passed by the District Forum, was again credited in her account.
13. Per contra, Mr. Roy Barman, Ld. Counsel appearing for the complainant while supporting the impugned judgment would contend that the opposite parties being the Non-Banking Financial Organization/Company though at the time of initial proposal for granting loan informed the complainant that they would claim 6% interest over the total amount of loan, but subsequently, it has deducted 16% interest in every month and in support of his contention he has placed the statement of accounts supplied by the opposite parties wherein it is mentioned the Installment Number, Due Date, Opening Principal, Installment Amount, Principal, Interest, TDS, Service Tax, Insurance Amount, VAT, Closing Principal and Rate (%) and as example, he has relied upon the 10^th installment due date of which was 25.12.2016, an Opening Principal was 306,028.80, Installment Amount was 13,239.00 in which Principal was 7,954.60, Interest was 4,148.40 and Insurance Amount was 1,136.00. Closing Principal was 2,98,074.20 and Rate of interest (%) was 16.2665354 and according to him, the interest deducted is more than 6%. He has further contended that as per application form, interest mentioned as flat rate 6.41%. Gross IRR to customer/CIFCL 16.27%. Net IRR 15.93%, required rate as per matrix 16.00%.
14. The Ld. District Forum in Paragraph-14 and 15 of the impugned judgment stated that,

“14. Petitioner in her evidence stated that O.P. No.3 Branch Manager of Cholamandalam, Udaipur Branch assured her that interest rate will only be 6%.

15. We have gone through the application form filed by petitioner. As per application form interest written flat rate 6.41%. Gross IRR to customer/ CIFCL 16.27%. Net IRR 15.93%, required rate as per matrix 16.00%. This is very much confusing. In the schedule of agreement customer IRR is written 16.27% rate of additional interest per annum is written 48%.”

15. After going through the statement of accounts as produced before us by the appellant-opposite parties, it appears that admittedly, after the interim order passed by the District Forum on 20.02.2017, the opposite parties deducted Rs.13,145/- from the account of the complainant on 25.04.2017 and on that date itself, credited the amount in her account, but it is nowhere stated as to whether they deducted the aforesaid amount due to ignorance of the Court’s order or not. We have also gone through the evidence of Sri Arindam Deb, O.P.W.1 who stated in his evidence that they are ready to receive the application for closure of the account. He also stated that the complainant visited the Udaipur Branch and offered Rs.2,86,714/- for final settlement of her loan account which is the principal loan amount. So, the Branch refused to accept the cheque, but nowhere stated in the evidence what more is the claim of the opposite parties.
16. The Ld. District Forum in Paragraph-19 and 20 of impugned judgment discussed about the principal amount of Rs.2,81,000/- which was due on 25.02.2017 and also discussed regarding the collection of insurance premium of Rs.11,360/- without supplying any policy certificate or informing the petitioner that insurance was purchased for her vehicle which are as follows:-

“19. From the schedule of the payment it is found that principal amount Rs.2,81,000/- was due on 25.02.17.  Rs.2,90,011.70/- was due on 25.01.17. From the statement of account it is found that O.P. Cholamandalam collected insurance premium Rs.11,360/- without supplying any policy certificate or informing the petitioner that insurance was purchased for her vehicle. Insurance was purchased by the petitioner on purchasing vehicle from other company and she paid the premium for that. Cholamandalam is not supposed to purchase any policy certificate for her vehicle. No information given and policy certificate also not produced. Therefore such deduction of Rs.11,360/- and thereafter also premium for one month by mechanical process was unjust and uncalled for. We have gone through the policy certificate purchased by the petitioner for her vehicle. Chola is therefore duty bound to refund the amount collected from her account as insurance premium.

20. From the perusal of evidence on record and the documents produced it is found that O.P. made inordinate delay in respect of settlement of loan matter. It did not take step for closure of loan amount on receipt of principal amount Rs.2,86,714/- as interest already paid and no interest was due. Penal interest cannot be imposed. In such a stage why the O.P. did not agree to close the loan account on satisfaction of payment of principal outstanding not clear at all. Principal amount was Rs.2,81,000/- as per statement dated 04.03.17. Thereafter also one installment Rs.13,145/-deducted through ECS. So the amount stands Rs.2,67,855/-. This amount remained as principal outstanding. As per schedule of the payment of loan Rs.2,65,162/-, Rs.3,708/- was interest in this Rs.13,145/- That interest already paid. So, no claim of interest remained at all. Excessive interest was taken by O.Ps violating the guideline of RBI. The interest rate was not properly projected before the petitioner at the time of taking the loan. This are unfair trade practice. O.P. made inordinate delay in settlement of loan amount closure after receipt of cheque. This is deficiency of service by the O.P. No.1, 2 & 3. Relief can be claimed under Consumer Protection Act as this legislation is to give additional relief.”

17. Upon going through the evidence on record as well as the findings of the Ld. District Forum, we are of the view that the opposite parties even did not inform the complainant as to why they did not receive the cheque issued by her and not only that, the opposite party no.3, Branch Manager, Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd., Udaipur Branch who informed the complainant that the outstanding balance would be Rs.2,98,074/- was not examined. Ld. Counsel for the appellants though stated that no amount was debited from her account for the purpose of vehicle insurance, but it appears from the statement of account that Rs.11,360/- was deducted from her account as insurance premium due, but nothing is there for what purpose of insurance, the said amount was deducted.
18. However, the account of statement from 05.02.2016 to 26.04.2017 as placed before this Commission at the time of hearing of the appeal, it appears that an amount of Rs.13,145/- was deducted on 25.04.2017 and the said amount paid vide FT (RT) Receipt No. (N.A.) on the same date i.e. before passing of the impugned judgment, but the said fact was not placed before the District Forum. Therefore, the Ld. District Forum could not get any opportunity to discuss regarding the aforesaid amount in its judgment. So, at the time of complying with the impugned judgment, the opposite parties are at liberty to adjust the aforesaid amount subject to verification of the accounts statement in presence of the respondent-complainant.  

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Ld. District Forum did not commit any error while passing the impugned judgment.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.          

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura