Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/55

Hardeepl Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh A S Walia

27 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Complaint No. CC/55/15 of 9.3.2015

                                      Decided on:        27.7.2015

 

Hardeep Singh son of late Balwant Singh, resident of earlier resident of H.No.9, New Rikhi Dev Marg, New Officers Colony, Patiala, now resident of 104-E, behind Harpal Tiwana Kalakender, Bara Khuha Road, Patiala.      

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Tata Finance Ltd. through its Branch Manager, SCO No.20, 1^st Floor, City Centre, near 22 No.Phatak,Opp. Sahni Bakery, Patiala.
2. ICICI Bank Ltd. Leela Bhawan Branch,Patiala through its Branch Manager.

                                                                   …………….Ops

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member                                        

Present:

For the complainant:   Sh.A.S.Kathuria, Advocate

For Ops:                       Sh.R.K.Pandey,Advocate            

                                     

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is the case of the complainant that he had raised a  vehicle loan from Op no.1 vide loan agreement TWH-249696. At the time of disbursing the loan amount, Op no.1 had got a sum of Rs.10,939/- deposited from the complainant by way of security and the same was converted into an FDR for a period of 2 ½ years and in this regard security deposit receipt No.PNW-109966 was issued in favor of the complainant. A sum of Rs.12578.64 was payable on maturity on 29.7.2006.
2. The complainant cleared the loan account and he was issued the NOC by Op no.2 namely ICICI Bank Limited as Op no.1 has been taken over by Op no.2 qua its assets and liabilities. The complainant approached the Ops a number of times in connection with the release of the amount of the FDR with interest but they went on putting him off under one or the other pretext. The Ops have withheld the amount of the FDR illegally and therefore, the complainant is entitled to the payment of the  interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the maturity till payment. The complainant also suffered the harassment as also the mental agony because of the non release of the amount of the FDR and therefore, he is entitled to a compensation in a sum of Rs.25000/-. The complainant got the Ops served with a legal notice dated 29.11.2014 but the Ops failed to respond. Accordingly the complainant brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Ops to release the amount of Rs.12578.64 with interest @18% per annum and further to pay him Rs.25000/-by way of compensation.
3. On notice, the Ops appeared and filed their written versions separately.
4. In the written version filed by Op no.1, it is admitted that the complainant had raised the vehicle loan and he was issued the FDR in a sum of Rs.10939/- but it is denied, for want of knowledge, that the complainant has cleared the loan account. The complainant never approached the Op regarding the release of the amount of the FDR. It is admitted by the Op that it has been taken over by Op no.2. It is denied that the amount of the FDR had been retained by the Op illegally. The loan portfolio has already been assigned to Op no.1 and all the securities were transferred to Op no.2  i.e. ICICI Bank Limited and the Op has nothing to do with the refund of the amount. No unfair trade practice has been committed by the Op. Ultimately, the Op prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. In the written version filed by Op no.2, it has also admitted the advancement of the vehicle loan by Op no.1 in favor of the complainant qua the FDR in question. It is also admitted that Op no.1 was taken over by Op no.2. It is denied that the complainant ever approached the Op in connection with the release of the security amount.
6. It is the plea taken up by the Op that the complainant had raised a loan of Rs.31253/- from Op no.1 for purchasing the vehicle and he had to pay the same in 30 installments but as per the statement of account of loan, the complainant committed default in the repayment of the installments, as the cheques tendered for repayment of the loan had bounced for want of funds in the account of the complainant and on the request of the complainant, the loan account was settled on 31.3.2009 after adjusting the amount of Rs.10939/-. As on 31.3.2009, a sum of Rs.30680/- was outstanding and recoverable from the complainant and the Op enforced Clause 18 of the Agreement, which pertains to ,” Set off and lien” and the balance amount after disbursing the proceeds of the FD has been waived off by the Op as a service gesture towards the customer, thereby having closed the loan account and the Op also issued the NOC. It is denied that the amount of Rs.10939/- has been retained illegally by the Op and rather the same was adjusted as explained above and therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any amount. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the Op, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
7. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C4 and his counsel closed the evidence.
8. On the other hand, on behalf of the Ops, their counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Sukhwinder Singh, Collection Manager of Op no.1 at Patiala, Ex.OPB, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Arashdeep Kumar, Legal Manager of Op no.2 alongwith the documents Exs.OP1 to OP4 and closed their evidence.
9. The Ops filed the written arguments.We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
10. It is the plea taken up by the Ops that as on 31.3.2009, a sum of Rs.30680/- was standing due and recoverable from the complainant and having invoked the provisions of clause 18 of the agreement, the account was settled after adjusting the amount of the security deposit qua the proceeds of the FDR and the balance amount outstanding against the complainant was waived off.
11. Ex.C2 is the security deposit receipt No.PNW109966 for Rs.10939/- issued by Op no.1 in favor of the complainant, the date of the maturity of the same being 29.7.2006 and the maturity value being Rs.12578.64. The reverse of the security deposit receipt provides: “The Depositors and/or the Hirer(s) and/or Guarantor(s) hereby confer an unconditional lien on the Owners in respect of the Security deposit and interest accruing thereon and grant to the Owner an unconditional right to adjust and appropriate these monies  (not readable) set off ( not readable) incurred  in relation to enforcement of the said Hire Purchase Agreement and then set off compensation arising out of the remittance monthly Hire dues under the said Hire Purchase Agreement and finally to set off monthly Hire dues under the Hire Purchase Agreement in the reverse of order maturity.”
12. Ex.OP3 is the copy of the agreement dated 30.1.2004, arrived at between the complainant and Op no.1 and clause 18 of the same pertains to set off and lien and Clause 18.1 and 18.2 provide: “18.1: The Borrower expressly accepts that if the Borrower fails to pay any monies when due or which may be declared due to prior to the date when it would otherwise have become due or commits any other default under any agreement(including this agreement) with TFL under which the Borrower(s) is enjoying any financial /credit/other facility, then in such event TFL shall without prejudice to any of the specific rights under each of the agreements, be absolutely entitled to exercise all or any of rights under any of the Borrower’s agreement(including this agreement) with TFL.

18.2 Until the ultimate balance owing by the Borrower or the Guarantor to TFL has been paid or satisfied in full TFL shall have a lien on all property and assets of the Borrower and  the Guarantor from time to time in the possession of and a charge over all stocks, shares and marketable and other securities from time to time and get any or all of them registered in the name of TFL or its nominees  whether the same be held for safe custody or otherwise.”

13. The agreement is attached with the schedule, in which there is a reference of security deposit amount of Rs.10939/- issued for a period of 30 months.
14. As per the statement of account Ex.OP4 of the complainant, maintained by Op no.2, a sum of Rs.30680.10 was due and outstanding against the complainant as on 31.3.2009. The Ops adjusted the amount of the security deposit of Rs.10939/-, thereby leaving the balance of Rs.19741.10. Op no.2 also adjusted the amount of the interest of Rs.1639.64 in the loan account and waived off the additional interest of Rs.12626.10, cheque bouncing charges of Rs.3481/- and installment interest of Rs.881/- and rendered zero balance in the account on 31.3.2009.
15. It is admitted by the complainant that Op no.2 issued him the NOC. The Ops alongwith written version filed on behalf of Op no.2 categorically stated with regard to the filing of the photo copy of the loan agreement and of the loan account statement with the written version but the complainant failed to raise any objection about the correctness of the statement of account Ex.OP4 in his sworn affidavit, Ex.CA, meaning thereby that the complainant accepted the accuracy of the statement of account.
16. It was submitted by Sh.R.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the Ops that the loan account of the complainant was settled by Op no.2 on 31.3.2009 having adjusted the amount of the security deposit but the complainant never raised any objection about the same within a period of two years from the date of the settlement of the loan account and got the Ops served with the legal notice only on 1.12.2014 and that too without having challenged the correctness of the statement of account and thus, the complaint of the complainant is hopelessly barred by limitation.
17. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant failed to raise any point.
18. We are of the considered view that in view of the terms and conditions arrived at between the parties qua the conditions incorporated on the reverse of the security deposit receipt Ex.C2, Op no.2 was justified in having adjusted the amount of the security amount receipt while settling the loan account of the complainant on 31.3.2009 because the complainant failed to cleare the loan account within the stipulated period of 30 monthly installments. The Ops having settled the account of the complainant on 31.3.2009 after having adjusted the amount of the security deposit receipt and having issued the NOC in favor of the complainant, the complainant failed to challenge the said settlement made by Op no.2 within a period of two years from the date of the settlement and therefore, the complaint is found not only  bereft of any merit, the same is also barred by limitation and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced

Dated: 27.7.2015

 

                   Sonia Bansal                Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                        Member                                  President