D.O.F:27/05/2019
D.O.O:02/05/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.No.100/2019
Dated this, the 2nd day of May 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Yousuf .C.M, aged 22 years,
S/o Ibrahim C.M,
R/at Kelukunnu House, : Complainant
Choori, R D Nagar Post,
Kasaragod Taluk & Dist.- 671124
(Adv. Suresh.K.P)
And
The Branch Manager,
HDFC Bank Ltd,
Pilikunnu Road, : Opposite Party
Kasaragod Post,
Kasaragod- 671121
(Adv. A. Radhakrishnan)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed on the ground of service deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
The facts of this case in brief is as follows: The complainant obtained a loan of Rs.71,186/- from the opposite party, for the purchase of vehicle No.KL14V 1185, agreeing to repay the amount in EMI of Rs.2,636/- commencing from 15.11.2017 to 15.10.2020. As per the agreement the complainant has to pay a total amount of Rs.94,896/- including interest . The complainant was repaying the EMI’s promptly but the opposite party threatened and abused the complainant by visiting his house and calling over phone. Therefore the complainant approached the opposite party on 21.05.2019and asked the details of the account. On verification of the statement of account the complainant came to know that some amount paid to the representative of the opposite party are not credited to the loan account. Instead of Rs.4,000/- paid on 15.03.2019 and 26.04.2019, only Rs.3,000/- is credited in the loan account. The opposite party without managing their representatives demanded the complainant to pay Rs.22,687/- for clearing dues and Rs.64,200/- for closing the loan account and threatened the seizure of the vehicle, on failure to pay the amount within seven days. The opposite party did not issue receipts for payments. Even though the interest fixed at the time of taking of loan was 11.10%, the opposite charged interest at the rate of 21.01% per annum. Out of the total amount of Rs.94,896/- the complainant already paid Rs.76,481/- and an amount of Rs.18,415/- is remaining to be paid in that account as on 15.10.2019. As per the terms of the agreement, the complainant is liable to pay Rs.50,084/- during that period, but the opposite party collected Rs.76,481/-. Collecting excess amount and threatening of seizure of vehicle and abusing would amount to unfair trade practice and service deficiency.
Hence this complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to issue proper receipt for the amount collected and to return Rs.26,397/- the excess amount collected and to settle the loan as per the terms and conditions of loan agreement and to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation and cost.
The opposite parties entered in appearance through their counsels, who filed the written version. As per the version of the opposite parties, the complaint is false, frivolous and not maintainable. The opposite party admitted that the complainant obtained a loan of Rs.71,186/- from the opposite party in the year 2017 agreeing to repay the amount in 36 EMI of Rs.2,636/- commencing from 15.11.2017.As per the loan agreement the complainant is liable to pay interest and overdue charges in case of default. Towards repayment, the complainant opted to transfer instalment amount from his account through ECS mode. The complainant was highly irregular in repayment, and several EMIs got bounced due to insufficiency of funds his account. The contentions in the complaint that complainant was repaying the EMI’s promptly, but the opposite party threatened and abused the complainant by visiting his house and calling over phone and that on verification of the statement of account the complainant came to know that some amount paid to the representative are not credited to the loan account. Instead of Rs.4,000/- paid on 15.03.2019 and 26.04.2019 ,only Rs.3,000/- is credited in the loan account and that opposite party without managing their representatives demanded the complainant to pay Rs.22687/- for clearing dues and Rs.64,200/- forclosing the loan account and threatened the seizure of the vehicle on failure to pay the amount within seven days and that the opposite party did not issue receipts for payments and that even though the interest fixed at the time of taking of loan was 11.10%, the opposite charged interest at the rate of 21.01% per annum and that out of the total amount of Rs.94,896/- the complainant already paid Rs.76,481/- and an amount of Rs.18,415/- is remaining to be paid in that account as on 15.10.2019 and that as per the terms of the agreement , the complainant is liable to pay Rs.50,084/- during that period , but the opposite party collected Rs.76,481/- etc. are false and hence denied. These allegations are raised only to harass the opposite party and avoid payment of the amount legally due in his loan account.There is no merit in the complaint and the complainant is not entitled for any relief from the opposite party.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked documents Ext.A1 and A2. He is cross examined as PW1. Ext.A1 is a copy of the RC of the vehicle, Ext A2 is the Bank statement of loan account No.52242347 of the complainant, for the period from 26.10.2017 to 21.05.2019. Another witness Mr.Ramprasad K S also examined as PW2 from the side of the complainant. From the side of the opposite party its manager filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination, who was cross examined as DW1.
Based on the pleadings of the rival parties, the following issued are framed for consideration.
1. Whether there is any service deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.
2. If so, what is the relief ?
For convenience both these issues are considered together. The specific case of the complainant is that that the entire amount paid to the representative of the opposite party are not credited to the loan account. Instead of Rs.4,000/- paid on 15.03.2019 and 26.04.2019, only Rs. 3,000/- is credited in the loan account and that the opposite party without managing their representatives demanded the complainant to pay Rs.22,687/- for clearing dues and Rs.64,200/- for closing the loan account and threatened the seizure of the vehicle on failure to pay the amount within seven days. The opposite party did not issue receipts for payments. Even though the interest fixed at the time of taking of loan was 11.10%, the opposite charged interest at the rate of 21.01% per annum. Out of the total amount of Rs.94,896/- the complainant already paid Rs.76,481/- and an amount of Rs.18,415/- is remaining to be paid in that account as on 15.10.2019. As per the terms of the agreement, the complainant is liable to pay Rs.50,084/- during that period , but the opposite party collected Rs.76,481/-Collecting excess amount and threatening of seizure of vehicle and abusing would amount to unfair trade practice and service deficiency.
The opposite party submits that as per the loan agreement the complainant is liable to pay interest and overdue charges in case of default. Towards repayment the complainant opted to transfer instalment amount from his account through ECS mode. The complainant was highly irregular in repayment, and several EMIs got bounced, due to insufficiency of funds his account. The allegations in the complaint are raised only to harass the opposite party and avoid payment of the amount legally due in loan account. There is no merit in the complaint and the complainant is not entitled for any relief from the opposite party.
The dispute is in connection to a loan transaction. Admittedly, there is a loan agreement, which is the basis of sanctioning and repayment of the loan. Even though both the parties argue on the basis of the loan agreement, neither of the parties produced a copy of the same before this commission. The complainant submit that no copy of the agreement is issued to him. But he did not take steps to cause production of the loan file from the opposite party. The one and only document available before this commission regarding the details of the loan is Ext.A2, which is the Bank statement of loan account No.52242347 of the complainant, for the period from 26.10.2017 to 21.05.2019. But it appears that the Ext A2 document is not much helpful for the complainant. The opposite Party’s argument is that for the repayment of the loan the complainant opted to transfer instalment amount from his account through ECS mode. So, the complainant is not bound or supposed to pay the amount in cash. In several occasion the instalment amount successfully transferred in ECS mode, but in several other occasion it is failed, due to insufficient funds in the account of the complainant. It is true that the complainant paid the instalments in some occasions in cash.
The complainant’s case that the opposite party’s representatives did not credit the entire amount paid by him to his loan account. Instead of Rs.4,000/- paid only Rs.3,000/- seen to be credited. The complainant could not prove such a case. He could not say as to who was the representative and what was his name exactly. Even though he examined a witness PW2 the provethe payment of amount through some representative of the opposite party, he has no direct knowledge but only hearsay evidence. He could not identify the representative. He do not know the connection of that representative with the opposite party.
The opposite party argue that there is no such representative for collection of instalments and no such payment by the complainant. The cash is directly paid at the counter by the complainant and the such amount are duly credited in the account. The direct cash payment necessitated when the payment through ECS mode failed due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the complainant. The complainant is bound to maintain sufficient funds in stipulated time of every month, so as to enable transfer of EMI amount through ECS mode. In most time the complainant failed to maintain sufficient amount in his account.
The opposite party argue that the complainant was very irregular in repayment of loan and as per the agreement, he is liable to pay default charges also. Further the document Ext.A2 produced would show that the complainant was very irregular in repayment of the loan and in most occasions the cheques bounced due to insufficiency of funds in his account resulting in levying of bouncing charges.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this commission is of the view that the complainant failed to prove any unfair trade practice or service deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed without cost.
The injunction order dated 27.05.2019 in IA 85/2019 stands vacated.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibit
A1: Copy of RC
A2: Bank Statement
Witness Cross examined
PW1: Yacoob
PW2: Ram Prasad K.S
DW1: Jayanth.M
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
