Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/534

Kunal Bajaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of Hyderabad - Opp.Party(s)

M.S..Sethi

18 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                                             C.C. No. 534 of 05.08.2014                                                                                 Date of Decision: 18.02.2015

Mr.Kunal Bajaj s/o Sunil Kumar Bajaj r/o 52, Vishal Nagar Extension, Ludhiana. 

                                                                                      … Complainant.

                                             Versus

 

1.State Bank of Hyderabad, 15/179, Sona Complex, G.T. Road, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana through its Asstt. General Manager.

2.State Bank of Hyderabad, Zonal Office 882, East Park Road Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 through authorized signatory.

                                                                                       …Opposite Parties

 

          Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

 

Quorum      Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.

                   Ms.Babita, Member.

                  

Present        Sh.M.S.Sethi, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.B.S.Jawahar, Adv. for OPs.

 

                                                ORDER

 

R.L. AHUJA, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed by Mr.Kunal Bajaj(hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against State Bank of Hyderabad, 15/179, Sona Complex, G.T. Road, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana through its Asstt. General Manager and others (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to correct the record of the complainant in its system as well as in the CIBIL against the car loan bearing No.62275131802 without further delay besides to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation and Rs.7500/- as litigation costs to the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant hired the services of the Ops for car loan against purchase of new car. The Ops got signed on printed and black papers without supplying its copy to the complainant. However, copy of agreement containing term and condition was supplied later on by the Ops on written representation of the complainant. At the time of sanctioning of the car loan w.e.f.14.3.2013, the Ops disclosed that they are going to sanction and release the car loan for Rs.4,76,000/- and the complainant is required to pay EMI of Rs.8014/- per month for 84 months against the car loan of RS.4,76,000/- against car loan account No.62275131802. However, the complainant acknowledged the facts from the account statement for the period 15.3.2013 to 31.5.2014 that the Ops released the car loan of RS.4,55,000/- instead of sanctioned amount of RS.4,76,000/-. In this way, there is difference of Rs.21,000/- which was withheld by the Ops illegally without assigning any cause, reason and justification and the complainant has filed a separate complaint with this Hon’ble Forum against the Ops on such facts etc. The complainant applied for new loan with the Ops which was refused by the Ops and then the complainant approached the other banks including SBI but on processing case of the complainant, the said bank also refused to proceed further because the Ops put the name of the complainant in the list of defaulter for Rs.8027/- as shown in the record of CIBIL dated 23.5.2014 against car loan. So, as per banking practice, no bank will sanction loan of any mode/kind unless name from CIBIL is not deleted or Ops gave NOC. The complainant approached the Ops and lodged his protest that why they sent his name being defaulter to the CIBIL for Rs.8027/- as well as there is no EMI of Rs.8027/- and no installment against his car loan bearing A/C No.62275131802 was pending, rather, the Ops are in possession of excess amount of Rs.21,000/-, out of sanctioned amount of RS.4,76,000/- etc, but the Ops failed to give any positive response and refused to give NOC. On refusal by the Ops to sent the status of the car loan of the complainant to CIBIL as regular & standard basis, the complainant claimed certificate of status of installment and in response to the application of the complainant, the Ops issued certificate dated 30.5.2014 showing outstanding amount of Rs.3.93 lacs against the deposit of Rs.3.94 lacs which proved that an amount of Rs.1000/- was excess as well as account is regular and standard and asset as such, without verifying the loan account. Such act and conduct of sending status of the car loan as defaulter to the CIBIL is claimed to be unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops by the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complainant, Ops were duly served and appeared through their counsel Sh.B.S.Jawahar, Advocate and filed their written statement, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the complainant has applied for car loan i.e. to purchase the Chevrolet Beat Car and the bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.4,76,000/- and as per the norms of the bank, only 85% of the total cost of car is to be disbursed. So, Rs.4,55,000/- being 8%% of Rs.5,34,358/- had been disbursed. The present complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Ops in view of the Consumer Protection Act. In fact, the complainant wanted the officials of the bank to act as per his wishes and desires. The complainant put pressure on the official b using unparliamentarily language and abusing them and as such, he is filing one complaint after the other leveling false allegations against the bank officials. The complainant earlier submitted a proposal for a loan to the tune of Rs.85 lakh for his hotel but the said proposal could not be sanctioned as it is not full filling the requirement of the bank. The present complaint is counter blast to the said refusal of the proposal. Beside the present complaint, he had also filed a complaint to the Banking Ombudsman at Chandigarh as well as to Reserve Bank of India and the Head office of the answering Ops for not sanctioning the hotel loan. The present complaint is bad in law and is liable to be dismissed. The answering OPs have provided the services to the complainant in accordance its norms and guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. NO cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present complaint. The answering Ops have also granted a education loan to the tune of RS.15,60,000/- to brother of the complainant Karan Bajaj for his study at abroad. The complainant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrongs. The cheques given by the complainant towards payment of installments have been dishonoured. Lateron, at the asking of officials of the bank, the complainant deposited the amount of installments in cash. So, in case of default in payment of installments, it automatically render the account irregular and further name of defaulter reported in the data base of Credit Information Bureau of India Limited(CIBIL). The complainant has given express consent at the time of availing the loan. However, the name of the complainant has not appeared in the CIBIL at the alleged relevant time as mentioned in the complaint. On merits, it is submitted that it had been made clear to the complainant that the bank has to sanction and grant the loan to the extent of 85% of the amount of the price given in the quotation of the new car. It is denied that there is difference of Rs.21,000/- which was withheld illegally and without assigning any cause, reason and justification as alleged. However, it is submitted that the bank is charging interest only on the disbursed amount i.e. Rs.4,55,000/- and this amount was to be repaid by the complainant alongwith interest etc. The answering Ops have not received so far the notice of complaint such as alleged by the complainant. Further, it is submitted that the complainant has not approached for any other car loan as alleged by him. Since, he has not approached or submit any proposal, so question of refusal does not arise at all. According to the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, if any person is a defaulter even for RS.1/- of the bank, the loan account of the said person is automatically reported in CIBIL as overdue. This measure has been taken in banking just to safeguard the interest of the bank. The reporting of the account over will be deleted/removed on receipt of payment from the said defaulter. The complainant has committed default in the payment to bank and his name was automatically reported in the CIBIL. The complainant is legally bound to make the payment of the amount of installment as and when it became due. The contents of the documents have been read over and explained to the complainant after dully filed in, before execution of the documents. The complainant is legally bound to discharge his liability to repay the loan amount as per terms and conditions of the security documents. Further, it is admitted as correct that the answering Ops have refused to sent the status of car loan of the complainant in CIBIL as regular and standard assets as there is default in making the payment of installments. The bank has supplied the correct status of installments to the complainant on his application. The complainant has not submitted any document to show that his account appeared in CIBIL as overdue. However, in the CIBIL report taken by the bank during that period does not list the complainant’s account as overdue. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as taken in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service and all other allegations of the complainant and any deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs, answering OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                Learned counsel for the complainant in order to prove the case of the complainant adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA1, in which, he has reiterated all the allegations made by him in the complaint. Further, the learned counsel for the complainant has proved on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C28.

5.                On the contrary, in order to rebut the case of the complainant, learned counsel for the OPs adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.T.J.Sriramamurthy, its Assistant General Manager, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of reply filed by OPs and refuted the case of the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the Ops has proved on record documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R12.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the documents on record very carefully.

7.                Admittedly, the complainant had applied for the sanction of car loan which was got sanctioned by the Ops to the tune of Rs.4,76,000/- and the same was to be repaid by the complainant in 84 monthly installments of Rs.8014/-. Perusal of the evidence of the Ops reveals that though the loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.4,76,000/- which was to be disbursed by the Ops to the complainant. However, the statement of account Ex.R12(Ex.C25) and other documents placed on record reveals that only a sum of Rs.4,55,000/- was disbursed in the loan account of the complainant without giving any intimation to the complainant. Even the loan was to be repaid by the complainant in 84 monthly installments of Rs.8014/-. However, the amount of EMI was required to be reduced as advance of Rs.21,000/- made less by the bank to the complainant. But the bank did not come forward to reduce the EMIs till date and continued to charge the EMI of Rs.8014/- per month.

8.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has contended that there was no overdue outstanding balance against the complainant when his name was given in the list of CIBIL, by which, the complainant suffered a lot and further, contended that there was only outstanding balance of Rs.80/- after deducting the excess amount of EMI’s towards the loan account of the complainant. On the other hand, there is specific contention of the learned counsel for the Ops that even if it is presumed that an amount of Rs.8014/- was due on the date when the name of the complainant was found in the list of CIBIL. But however, once it is proved on record that there was some overdue balance outstanding against the complainant. According to the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, if any person is a defaulter even for Rs.1/- of the bank, the loan account of the said person is automatically reported in CIBIL as overdue. There is no personal or manipulation in the entry of the CIBIL.

9.                From the statement of account Ex.C22 to Ex.C27(Ex.R12) and other documents, it is proved fact on record that though, the amount shown in the list of CIBIL was not overdue outstanding on the date when the information was sent to the CIBIL by the Ops. However, there was some overdue outstanding amount against the complainant. So, the plea of the complainant for deletion of his name figured in the list of CIBIL illegally and arbitrary is devoid of any merit.

10.              The second contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that once the sanctioned amount was not disbursed, the bank has no right to charge EMI of Rs.8014/-, which they have charged illegally and arbitrarily.

11.              Certainly, when the full sanctioned amount of the loan was not disbursed to the complainant, the act of fixing the amount of installments at Rs.8014/- was not legal. However, the Ops have charged the same from the complainant. But since the bank did not come forward to revise the repayment schedule by fixing the EMI and by not serving the notice of the complainant qua the disbursement of the loan amount which certainly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.

12.              In view of the above discussion, we hereby partly allow this complaint and as a result, we hereby direct the Ops to revise the repayment schedule and give credit of the amount deposited by the complainant and settle the balance outstanding in the presence of the complainant after serving him a 7 days prior notice upon the complainant. Further, Ops are directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation costs to the complainant. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record room.

 

(Babita)                (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L.Ahuja)

            Member                  Member                       President  

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:18.02.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.