Shri. Aswini Kumar Patra,President:

1. This Complaint is filed by the complainant named above inter alia alleging deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of the Opp.Party as the OP has denied issuing “No Due Certificate” with respect to the financed vehicle even after repayment of entire EMIs.
2. Complainant seeks for an order directing the O.Ps/ Company to  issue      ”No Due Certificate” in favour of the complainant with respect to the financed vehicle and to hold unfair Trade practice & Deficient Service there on the part of the Ops and  further to direct the Ops to calculate the rate of interest as per RBI guideline & to return the excess amount collected from the complainant and further prayed for an order directing the Ops to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards mental agony along with  cost of the litigation of Rs.10,000/-.
3. Brief fact of the complaint is that, the complainant is an Auto Driver by occupation bearing DL No. OD0820190000448 had purchased an Auto Rickshaw vide Regd.No.OD08L4900 being financed by OPs. The complainant has avail financial assistances of Rs.1,94,000/- only on dt.23/04/2019 from the Ops .The loan tenure was 4 years repayable in 48 EMI @ 6,350/- only per month. The financed vehicle is Hypothecated with Ops but no loan -cum - Hypothecation agreement, details of repayment scheduled, rate of interest charged is supplied to the complainant. It is contended that, the complainant has availed moratorium during Covid-19. However, the complainant has already paid all the 48 EMIs as per the demand of Ops and entitled for “No Due Certificate” but the Ops  demanding more payment arbitrarily and alter the agreed number of EMIs from 48 to 58 on the back & behind of the complainant and asked to pay extra 10 EMIs illegally .The account statement dt. 04/10/2023 arbitrarily shows that, amount financed : Rs.1,94,000/-,amount disbursed : Rs.1,94,000/-,Instalment overdue : Rs. 6350/-, other overdue : Rs. 11,960/- ,net receivable : Rs.18310/-, Future Instalment:  Rs.36,964.60 paisa, Instalment paid Rs. 2,92,100/- ,Principal Paid : Rs.153826/-, Principal out standing’s. 34,610/- , Interest paid : Rs. 138274/-, .It is further alleged that, the ops have charged flat rate of interest @ 23.48 % per month which is excessive & against the RBI notification/guideline only to exploit the consumer/complainant. It is further alleged that, the Ops have never visited to the complainant or attended the financed vehicle but arbitrarily charged @ Rs. 236 every month which the complainant is not liable to pay and that, the Ops has arbitrarily charged cheque bounced charges though payment was regularly made & no cheque was bounced. More over it is alleged that, the Ops are threatening forceful repossession of the subject vehicle in case of default of payment of aforesaid amount which caused financial burden & mental agony to the complainant .Hence this complaint.
4.  To substantiate his claim the complainant has filed the self attested true photo copy of the following documents:- (i) DL vide No. OD0820190000448  of the complainant,(ii) Account statement from 30/04/2019 to 04/10/2023 vide Agreement No. XVFPBPA00002947113,(iii) Repayment scheduled generated on 25/11/2023 ,(iv) Demand Notice dt. 07 December 2023,(iv) Bills towards payment of EMIs to the ops from 04/12/2019 to 04/10/2023 (total 43 numbers of bill) .The averment of the complainant is supported by an affidavit of the complainant.
5. On being notice the OPs appeared through their Learned Counsel Shri M.R.Mohanty & associate and filed their written version. Primarily the Op has challenged the maintainability of the complaint taking plea of jurisdiction & arbitration clause of the loan agreement and further contended that, complainant is not a consumer as defined under C.P.Act. The complaint allegation is denied by the OPs on all its material particulars and asked the complainant to strict prove of the complaint allegation. However, disbursement of loan of Rs.1,94,000/- on 30/04/2019 vide Agreement No. XVFPBPA00002947113 provided to the complainant for purchasing of the subject vehicle is not   disputed by the Ops.
6. The Ops further contended that, the complainant is not in clean hand. The complainant has availed moratorium benefit during Covid-19 where in no payment was made by the complainant.  As per the loan agreement the complainant as on 29/01/2024 is in default of net receivable of Rs. 39,879/- along with instalment over dues charges Rs.25,400/- ,future instalment Rs.11564/- ,Principal outstanding Rs.11,244/- as per the  statement of account i.e.  Annexure –“A” of the written version. Therefore, as per the terms of the agreement the   Ops have all right to repossess the vehicle and sale it to secure its outstanding dues against the borrower and the same shall not construed as deficient service or unfair trade practice. 
7. To substantiate their claim the Ops have filed the self attested true copy of the following documents with their written version:-(i) copy of loan account statement from 30/04/2019 to 29/01/2024 vides Agreement No. XVFPBPA00002947113 there in the name of Gunanidhi Gahir /Complainant, (ii) copy of Repayment Scheduled generated on 29/01/2024. (iii) Copy of demand notice dt. 07 December 2023, (iv) Copy of loan agreement along with loan repayment scheduled dt. 30 /04/2019 . The averment of the written version is supported by an affidavit of one Abhisek Mohanty, the Asst. Legal Manager Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd,Bhawanipatna.
8. Heard .Perused the material available on record. We have our thoughtful consideration on the contention of both the parties and argument submitted by their Learned Counsel.
9. Here, in this case it is not disputed that, the complainant has availed financial assistances/loan of Rs.1,94,000/- on dt.30/04/2019 vide Agreement No. XVFPBPA00002947113 for purchasing of the vehicle repayable by the complainant with interest is not disputed. As such, this Commission may safely conclude that, the complainant is a consumer of the ops.
10. Law is well settled that, arbitration and jurisdiction clause of the loan agreement does not bar the jurisdiction of the consumer Fora /Commission to entertain the complaint. Hence, the primarily objection raised by the learned counsel for the Ops on the maintainability of the complaint taking plea of jurisdiction & arbitration clause of the loan agreement is not admissible rather rejected.
11. The self attested true copy of loan application vide No. 6405642 dt 29/04/2019, Loan Agreement vide Agreement No. XVFPBPA00002947113 dt.30/04/2019, Repayment scheduled dt. 30 /04/2019 placed on the record by the Ops remain undisputed which clearly proved that, loan  amount of Rs 1,94,000/- was disbursed to the complainant on 30/04/2019 and the complainant has agreed to repay in 47 month with  47 numbers of monthly EMIs. The first instalment date : 05 Jun 2019 and the last instalment date was fixed on  05 April 2023 remain undisputed .
12. We have seen that , the  complainant has agreed to pay interest @  23.48 % P.A. Nothing material placed to hold that, there is any undue influence made on the complainant to agree to pay such a huge interest over the loan amount. The complainant has pleaded that, charging of such a huge interest is against the guideline of RBI but no guideline of RBI is placed on record to prove his contention.
13. The statement of loan account from 30/04/2019 to 04/10/2023 under Agreement No. XVFPBPA00002947113 dt.30/04/2019 filed by the complainant is not disputed by the ops which shows differently that, the tenure of repayment of loan is 58 month though the scheduled of repayment of the loan clearly shows that, complainant has agreed to repay in 47 month with 47 numbers of monthly EMIs. It is not clarified either by the complainant or by the Ops/finance company during hearing of this case as to how the repayment tenure get increased to 58 month from agreed 47 numbers. The complainant on affidavit has proved that, the Ops have arbitrarily increased the number of EMIs from 47 to 58 on the behind & back of the complainant remain un-rebutted. Nothing contrary is pleaded or proved by the Ops.
14. The ops, to substantiate their pleadings, filed the evidence affidavit of their Asst legal manager Sri. Abhisekh Mohanty, who has reproduced the loan details and contended that, as per the account statement as on 29.01.2024 the complaint is in default of net receivable of Rs.39,879/- along with instalment overdue charges Rs.25400/-/,future instalment Rs.11560/- ,Principal Outstanding Rs.11244/- and other charges in the statement of account Annex as Annexure-A .We have seen that , the O.P has issue a demand notice dt.07 December 2023 where the O.P has demanded EMI outstanding Rs.19,050/-, Principal Outstanding Rs.17256/-, Additional Interest Rs4872/- cheque bounce and others Rs.8304/- in total Rs.49,482/-. On perusal of the account statement from 30.04.2019 to 29.01.2024 placed on record it is mentioned  nothing about bounce of any cheque .However, the O.P has demand Rs.8304/- towards cheque bounce charges is nothing but proved an unfair trade practice there on the part of O.Ps.
15. The complainant has categorically pleaded and proved  on affidavit that, the O.P has never visited to him or to the finance  vehicle but visiting charge @Rs.236/- has been arbitrarily  charged by the O.P which is reflected in the account statement remain un-rebutted clearly proved the unfair trade practice there on the part of O.ps .
16.  The self attested true copy of loan application vide No. 6405642 dt 29/04/2019, Loan Agreement vide Agreement No. XVFPBPA00002947113 dt.30/04/2019, Repayment scheduled dt. 30 /04/2019 placed on the record by the Ops remain undisputed which clearly proved that, loan  amount of Rs 1,94,000/- was disbursed to the complainant on 30/04/2019 and the complainant has agreed to repay it in 47 month with  47 numbers of monthly EMIs. The first instalment date : 05 Jun 2019 and the last instalment date was fixed on  05 April 2023 remain undisputed.
17. It is proved form the subject loan account statement from 30.04.2019 to 29.01.2024 that , the complainant has already repaid the entire 48 EMIs to the O.ps. Rather, the Op has failed to establish under which circumstances the EMI has been enhance form 48 to 58, as such, we are of the opinion that , increase of EMI to 58 numbers form agreed number of  47  EMIs is illegally & arbitral  which are not payable by the complainant. Hence, we are of the opinion that, the complainant is entitled for “No Due Certificate” from the Ops with respect to the subject loan.
18. Based on above facts & circumstances and in the light of above discussion this Commission is of the considered view that, there is unfair trade practice on the part of ops/Finance Company for denial of issue of “No Dues Certificate” with respect to the allege loan to the complainant even after receiving of entire EMIs. Hence, this complaint is allowed in part on contest against the Ops with the following orders.-

                                                                                     ORDER

The Ops are hereby directed to issue “NO DUES CERTIFICATE” to the complainant towards subject loan account of the complainant and further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony which includes   cost of the litigation.

    This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of receiving of this order failing which the Op shall be liable to pay compensation of Rs.100/-per day till compliance. This consumer complaint is disposed off accordingly. The Pending application if any is also disposed off accordingly.

Dictated and corrected by me.

                    Sd/-       

                 President

                                      I   agree.

                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                          Member    

      Pronounced in open Commission today on this 26^th   September 2024  under the seal and signature of this Commission. The Pending application if any is also disposed off accordingly. This complaint could not be decided on time in want of quorum of the Commission.

      Free copy of this order be supplied to the parties for their perusal or party may download the same from the Confonet be treated as copy served to the parties. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.