DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD

Dated this the 27^th day of  July, 2022

Present  :  Sri.Vinay Menon V., President        

             :   Smt.Vidya A., Member

             :   Sri. Krishnankutty N.K.,Member

Date of filing: 12/01/2021

                                           CC/9/2021

      Bifathuma,                                        -               Complainant

      W/o. Basheer,

      Chekkini House, Paruvasserry  P.O,

      Vadakkenchery-678 683.

      (Party in person).

                                                          Vs

   1.The Branch Manger

      Hero fincorp, 3^rd Floor,     

      Near Indira Gandhi Stadium, 

      Valiaparambu Road, Kunnathurmedu (PO)

      Palakkad.

   2.The Manger,                                 -             Opposite Parties

      Hero fincorp Corporate Office,

      09, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar,

      New Delhi-110 057.

      (OPs by Adv.P.A.Gireesh Kumar) 

                                                 O R D E R

By Smt. Vidya A, Member

Pleadings of the complainant in brief.

  1.        The complainant purchased a two wheeler, and for that purpose.   She availed loan from the 1^st opposite party with loan agreement No.PLPTWL00100001733936.  The loan amount was Rs.58,300/- to be paid in 36 installments with a monthly installment of Rs.2264/- and with an initial down payment of Rs.15,000/-.

           First four installments were taken from her bank account and from 5^th installment onwards, the money was collected directly by their collection agent.   But he did not provide receipt for the payments and when asked about this he informed that digital message will be send by the office.  Later she approached the 1^st opposite party for closing the loan by paying the balance amount, but they informed that even if she closes the loan they will deduct monthly installments from her account till January 2021.  After paying 38 installments, she asked the opposite party for No Objection Certificate and they asked her to pay 3 more installments for getting NOC.  Further the staff and the collection agents behaved rudely which caused mental torture to her.  She filed this complaint for getting NOC from the opposite parties and to refund the extra EMI’s paid by her amounting to Rs.4528/- and to pay a compensation of Rs.1 lakh.

  2.       After admitting the complaint, registered notices were issued to the opposite parties.  The opposite parties did not file their version and they were set ex-parte.   Later they filed RA 7/21 to review the order and it was allowed and version taken on file.

3.        In their version, opposite parties admitted that the complaint availed a loan from them and the first 4 installments of EMIs were collected from the complainant’s bank account and 5^th installment onwards their collection agent collected the amount.  They further admit that they informed the complainant that even if she closes the loan, they will deduct monthly EMIs till January 2021.  The complainant had paid 38 installments and the extra installments were only due to irregular payments.  When she approached them for settling the loan, they informed that she has to clear 6 more installments for getting NOC and need to pay Rs.28,000/- more.  She did not pay the EMIs regularly and was a defaulter. 

4.         After filing of version by opposite parties, the main points arising for consideration were framed and it was posted for ‘steps’ and later for proof affidavit of complainant.  But the complainant was continuously absent and the complainant was taken for orders based on merit.

              The complainant was continuously absent from 25.03.2021 onwards and she did not file proof affidavit.  She produced the account statement issued by the opposite party dated 05.02.2020 along with the complaint.   From that it is clear that she is a regular defaulter of EMIs.  The excess installments alleged to be collected by the opposite parties represent the cheque bouncing charges and OD charges (Interest on delayed payments) which, in this context, seems to be appropriate.  So there is no Deficiency in Service on the part of the opposite parties.   However the 1^st opposite party is directed to issue NOC to the complainant once the amount as per their agreement is paid.

             In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.

              Pronounced in the open court on this the 27^th day of  July, 2022

                                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                                     Vinay Menon V

                                          President

                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                          Vidya A

                                            Member

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                  Krishnankutty N.K

                                                                                          Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant: Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties : Nil

Witness examined from complainant’s side:- NIL

Witness examined from opposite party’s side:- NIL

Cost: Nil.