CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 15th day of October, 2016
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT Date of filing:04/05/2016
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER
: SRI.V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER
CC/60/2016
Dr.Thekkedath Muralidharan,
S/o.Late M.S.M.Menon, 11/750, : Complainant
Robinson Road,
Palakkad City Post Office (P.O),
Palakkad.
(Adv.V.K.Venugopalan)
Vs
The Executive Director,
Bajaj finserv, Bajaj Finance Ltd,
3rd Floor,R.V.K.Tower, : Opposite Party
High Road Village, Chembukkavu,
Thrissur.
O R D E R
By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
Brief facts of the Case.
The agents of opposite party approached the complainant promising easy loan, minimum interest and affordable EMIs and wanted the complainant to avail loan. The complainant had very cordial relations with HDFC and SBT; but because of the strong canvassing made by the agents of the opposite parties the complainant happened to avail a loan account of Rs.1464519/- which together with processing fee of Rs.34382/-and a Group Insurance of Rs.30000/- amounted to Rs.1530000/-. At the time of availing the loan, opposite party promised any time closure of the loan without foreclosure charges or penal interest. The loan amount was agreed to be paid in 60 EMIs of Rs.36802/- each. The EMIs were collected by auto debit mandate by the opposite party through their Pimpri branch of SBT. After availing loan, when interest was calculated, the interest rate was found to be exorbitant that is 15.5% compared to 12.99% of HDFC loan. When contacted over phone, the opposite parties behaved indifferently. Hence the complainant decided to foreclose the loan and deposited Rs.1100000/-on 05.05.2015 through Neft at the HDFC Palakkad branch to the account of opposite party. Then the opposite party sent a foreclosure letter and a statement of account dated 22.05.2015 demanding an additional amount of Rs.373090.28/- for the loan amount to be foreclosed. Complainant remitted Rs.250000/- on 16.5.2015 and Rs.126864/- on 29.5.2015 making a total payment of Rs.376864/- against the demanded amount of Rs.373090.28./- Hence an amount of Rs.3373.72/-more was remitted to the opposite party anticipating any ploy by the opposite party to stall the process of foreclosure. As demanded by the opposite party through their email letter, the complainant sent copies of pass book entries as proof of remittance of amount to close the loan. There was no response from the opposite party thereafter. Complainant’s repeated attempts to search the opposite party or their local office by phone or SMS was not successful. Instead they adopted the technique of using the auto debit mandate, presenting a cheque every month and the complainant was made to pay check bouncing charges every time. As no amount is due to the opposite party the presentation of cheques obtained as mentioned above is deliberately made to cause annoyance inconvenience, mental agony and financial loss to the complainant because he failed to make illegal gains to the opposite party by not paying the exorbitant interest. The bouncing of cheques makes the complainant a defaulter among the banking companies who have their collective website informing the particulars of defaulters. This causes great inconvenience and loss to the complainant because he has to avail loan for agricultural purposes which has government subsidy. The complainant is a professional and a renowned ophthalmologist in Palakkad town. The complainant availed and wanted to avail loan for purchase of medical equipments to modernize and update his clinic. The illegal acts and omissions on the part of the opposite party in presenting the cheques using the auto debit mandate, which they are to return to the complainant on foreclosure of the loan availed by him, caused him recurring difficulties. The opposite party did not disclose their clear address in their communications and therefore they were unable to be contacted in the mail Id also. The complainant managed to get their office address at Trichur with great difficulty.
All the above acts and omissions constituted a deliberate deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is also a clear unfair trade practice; according to the complainant. Complainant pleads that the vengeance with which cheques were presented and hence their actions was a deliberate cheating punishable under Indian Penal Code. Further, the complainant was prevented from availing any loan from any other institutions/banks because of the bouncing of the cheques. Hence the complainant had to approach the Hon’ble forum for relief.
Therefore, it is prayed by the complainant that the Hon’ble forum may pass an award. a) Ordering the opposite party to revoke the auto debit mandate received by them at the time of granting loan forthwith.
b)Order payment of an amount of Rs.500000/- as compensation towards mental agony, sufferings, inconveniences caused in availing loan from other financial institutions and financial loss sustained by the complainant due to the unfair trade practice of the opposite party and c) to reimburse the cheque bouncing charges of Rs.104/-for each mandate and also the cost of this complaint all with interest @ 12% per annum.
The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to opposite party.
The opposite party did not file their version and documents to prove their case. They did not file chief affidavit also. Complainant filed chief affidavit along with documents which were marked as Exts.A1-A6. Complainant also filed notes of arguments. Registered notice against opposite party was also served on them.
The following issues arise in this case.
- Whether there is any negligence/unfair trade practice/deficiency of service on the side of opposite party?
- If so, what is the relief?
Issues 1&2
In this case the complainant has avail doctor’s loan from the opposite party. As per Ext.A1 series the loan repayment schedule was given mentioning EMI amount, EMI due date, interest component and principal component. Nil repayment charges was also mentioned. The rate of interest was 15.5% and EMI was Rs.36802/- each. On this loan 4 EMIs were paid by the complainant at the date of foreclosure. The four EMIs were paid on 02.02.2015, 02.03.2015 04.04.2015 and 02.05.2015.
The complainant decided to foreclose the loan because of the exorbitant rate of interest charged by the opposite party of (15.5% as per Ext.A1 series). After foreclosure of the loan by the complainant, the opposite party did not return to him the post dated cheque received from him at the time of the latter availing of the loan. Further it is also seen that opposite party resorting to auto debit mandate, and postdated cheques were presented and they were caused to be dishonored by the opposite party. Also opposite party did not seen to have given their clear address for the purpose of contacting and communicating by the complainant . Hence difficulties were caused to the latter. It is also seen that cheque dishonor charges were also collected from the complainant which is evident from Exts.A2, A4 & A5. Complainant was allowed to foreclose his doctor’s loan which is clear from the opposite party sending documents mentioned in Ext.A3. Complainant has remitted to opposite party Rs.376864/- against the demanded amount of Rs.373090.28 /-for foreclosure vide Ext.A1 series and Ext.A5 and there is excess payment of Rs.3373.72/- by the complainant . Above all cheques dishonor we also affect the prestige and goodwill of the complainant as a doctor in the society and also among other banks which will affect the prospects of the complainant in getting future loans.
From the above we understand that the opposite party has collected Rs.373.72/- more on account of loan repayment at the time of foreclosure . Further by using auto debit mandate they have collected cheque bouncing charges by wrongly dishonor of his post dated cheques, which should have been returned to the complainant on his foreclosing his doctor’s loan. Also correct and clear address was not given by the opposite party to the complainant which caused him difficulties to contact the opposite party. Above all wrongful dishonor of the post dated cheques will caused a bad impression of the complainant’s credit worthless among banks and other financial institutions.
Hence we view that opposite party have committed unfair trade practice and deficiency of service towards the complainant.
Therefore the complaint is allowed.
We order the opposite party to refund the excess amount of Rs,3373.72/-collected from the complainant at the time of foreclosure of his loan, to pay back cheque bouncing charges debited to his SB account to pay Rs.20000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand only)compensation for mental agony and sufferings undergone by the complainant.
The Order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Otherwise interest at 9% should also be paid on the total amount from the date of this order to the date of realization.
This order shall be pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of October 2016.
Sd/-
Shiny. P.R
President
Sd/-
Suma. K.P Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 series– Loan Repayment Schedule dated 31.12.2014
Ext.A2 – Statement of Account dated 12.4.2016
Ext.A3 –Foreclosure letter and Statement of Account dated 20.5.2015
Ext.A4- Cheque bouncing particulars
Ext.A5- Repayment of Original Statement of Account dated 01.4.2014
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost allowed
Rs.20000/-as cost
