DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK
Dated the 23rd day of February, 2021
C.D Case No. 23 of 2019
Present 1. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Presiding Member
2. Afsara Begum, Member
Sri Tushar Kanti Acharya
S/o Late Muralidhar Acharya
Vill- Jagannath Vihar (Mathasahi)
Po/Ps/Dist: Bhadrak, Odisha
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
- The Branch-In-Charge
Magma Fincorp Ltd., Balasore Branch
At- Sahadevkhunta (Near Canara Bank), Po/Ps/Dist- Balasore- 756001
2. Magma Fincorp Ltd.
Regd. Office, Magma House, Park Street, Kolkata- 700016
…………… Opposite parties
Counsel For Complainant: Sri D. Nayak, Adv & Others
Counsel For the O.Ps : Sri K. K. Das, Adv & Others
Date of hearing: 08.02.2021
Date of order: 23.02.2021
BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, PRESIDING MEMBER
This dispute arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The facts as narrated in the complaint are that the complainant is an Ex-Defense personnel who applied for a vehicle loan to OP No. 1 in order to earn his livelihood and maintain his family. Being satisfied with the complainant, the OP No. 1 sanctioned a sum of Rs 9,94,000/- and after compliance of all formalities the said OP released the loan for acquisition of a vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR-04F-6025 and the complainant also submitted 3 numbers of signed blank cheques as per demand of the OP. The complainant also deposited Rs 53,066/- with OP No. 1 towards down payment. The loan so granted together with interest was repayable in 57 monthly installments first installment of which was Rs 17,428/- and next 20 installments @ Rs 28,000/- per month, next 20 installments @ Rs 25,000/- per month and the last 16 installments was of @ Rs 21,000/- per month starting from 01.10.2006 to 01.06.2011. Accordingly the complainant executed all required documents and demanded for a copy of loan agreement and repayment schedule but the O.Ps did not made over the copies instantly and assured to submit the said copies by post but did not do so. After availing the loan the complainant went on repaying the loan installments regularly to clear up the loan. After the loan is fully repaid, the complainant requested issue on NOC which is not issued by the said OP. Instead of issuing NOC OP No. 1 demanded an amount of Rs 4,50,000/- towards overdue interest for closer of the account and issue of NOC which is illegal and unfair. Such act of the OP, no doubt, amounts to deficiency of service and demanding undue amount for closer of account is an act of unfair trade practice of the O.Ps. In spite of repeated request and persuasions, when the O.Ps did not issue NOC, the complainant was compelled to file a case in this Dist. Commission praying for a direction to O.Ps for issuing NOC with cost and compensation.
O.Ps objected the claim of the complainant and contested the case. At the outset the O.Ps raised that the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer and the relationship between the complainant and the O.Ps is that of “borrower” and “lender” for which no dispute arises. Simultaneously it is also stated that the complainant has not utilized the vehicle for earning his livelihood and therefore he is not a consumer within the meaning of CP Act. Accordingly the O.Ps have also cited the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute case. It is also stated that the complainant has failed to repay the loan installments on or before the due dates fixed for which he is liable to pay the late payment charges. As because the complainant was a chronic defaulter, the O.Ps terminated the loan agreement on 09.09.2006 and appointed arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute and accordingly complainant was noticed to appear before the learned arbitrator on 31.01.2012 but the complainant did not appear before the arbitrator. In absence of the complainant the arbitrator passed an award in favour of O.Ps and the same was communicated to the complainant on the same day on dt. 31.01.2012. In the above premises the O.Ps have never committed deficiency of service with regards to the transactions of the complainant. In the above backdrop the present complaint is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
Evidently on the request of the complainant the O.Ps sanctioned and disbursed a sum of Rs 9,94,000/- for acquisition of a vehicle as against which the complainant has deposited Rs 53,066/- towards down payment and the balance amount together with interest was repayable 57 installments starting from 01.10.2006 to 01.06.2011. It is evident from the record that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs 14,19,028/- within 24.07.2011 the money receipts of which has been submitted by the complainant preserved in the record. The mode of payment as per statement adduced by the complainant shows that there is instances of late payment to the loan account for which the complainant is liable to pay overdue interest on the overdue amount. However it is also observed that the complainant has paid 4,25,008/- towards interest and penal interest to liquidate the loan account. But the O.Ps are further demanding that the complainant has to pay another Rs 4,50,000/- to the credit of the loan account for closer of the loan account which leads to believe that the O.Ps have exorbitantly charged higher rate of overdue interest violating the directives issued by R.B.I. It is also presumed that whatever amount has been paid by the complainant to the credit of the loan account is adequate to liquidate the loan account. Instead of closing the loan account, the O.ps have disputed the matter before the arbitrator within kolkatta jurisdiction which was disposed of on merit fixing the liability on the complainant to pay Rs 1,76,327/- as on the date of award i.e. on 31.01.2012. The copy of the award has been communicated to the complainant on dt. 01.03.2012, the receipt of which is denied by the complainant. It is also a fact that the O.Ps and the Court of the arbitrator have not given sufficient opportunity to the complainant of being heard. Further the O.Ps have not issued the repayment schedule chart to the complainant so as to make him aware of the due dates of installments of the loan installments and also not made over the copy of the loan agreement as a result of which the complainant could not know the due date of installments and amount for repayment without default. These actions of O.Ps amounts to deficiency of service as the O.Ps have deliberately and intentionally not issued the above mentioned documents for awareness of the complainant. In the above premises this Commission finds gross negligence on the part of O.Ps in discharging responsibilities with due diligence.
In the above backdrop this Commission is of considered opinion that the O.Ps have caused deficiency of service and resorted to unfair trade practice for which liable to exempt the excess amount whatever has been charged on the complainant for payment. Hence ordered;
- ORDER
In the result, the complaint be and the same is allowed on part against the O.Ps on contest with cost and compensation. O.Ps are also directed to exempt the loan outstanding in the account and issue No Due Certificate in favour of the complainant and to pay Rs 5,000/- as compensation and Rs 2,000/- towards cost of litigation within 30 days from date of receipt of order.
This order is pronounced in the open Court on this day of 23rd February, 2021 under my hand and seal of the Commission.
