Tripura

West Tripura

CC/20/2017

Smt. Kakali Paul. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.P.R.Barman, Mr.K.Nath.

27 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 20 of  2017

Smt. Kakali Paul,
W/O- Sri Sadhan Ch. Paul,
Arjya Colony,
P.O. & P.S. Belonia,
South Tripura.                ....…...Complainant.

           VERSUS

      1. Cholamandalam Investment and 
Finance Co. Ltd., (CHOLA)    
Represented by the General Manager,
CHOLA, Dare House, 1st Floor, No.2,
N.S.C. Bose Road, Parrys, 
Chennai.

      2. Branch Manager,
Cholamandalam Investment  Finance Co. Ltd.,
Math Chowmuhani, College Road, Shibnagar, 
P.O. Agartala College,
West Tripura.

      3. Branch Manager,
Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd.,
1st Floor, Mukta Market,
Opp. Co-operative Bank,
Central Road, Udaipur, R.K. Pur,
Gomati District- 799120.           ............ Opposite parties.

                      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant        : Sri Purushuttam Roy Barman,
                      Sri Koushik Nath,
                      Advocates.      
                      
    For the O.Ps                 : Sri Dipankar Sarma,
                            Advocate.
                 

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   27.04.2017

J U D G M E N T

        This case arises on the petition filed by one Kakali Paul U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that in he 1st week of February, 2016 she went to the Maruti Suzuki Showroom, Udaipur for purchasing Maruti Vehicle. O.P. the Branch Manager of Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. approached her to take loan for purchasing the Maruti vehicle. Accordingly loan agreement signed and O.P. No.3 started deduction  of loan amount through EMI @ Rs.13,239/- per month. Loan amount Rs.3,73,000/- is to be repaid through 55 installments as per agreement. Petitioner thereafter came to learn that excessive interest rate was imposed on the loan. O.P. assured to impose the interest @ 6% but more than 16% interest was imposed. So, petitioner wanted to pay the whole amount at a time for getting relief from the loan liability. Branch Manager of Udaipur Branch informed her that the outstanding balance would be Rs.2,98,074/-. In the meant time she paid Rs.11,360/-. So rest amount she wanted to pay at a time and accordingly sent a cheque for Rs.2,86,714/- in the main branch of the Cholamandalam at Chennai. But the O.Ps refused to encash the amount and continued the deduction of the EMI from the bank account of petitioner. By such deficiency of service she suffered and filed this case for redress. 

2.        O.P. NO.1, 2 & 3 appeared and filed W.S. denying the claim. It is stated that the dispute is to be decided through arbitration as per agreement. O.Ps deducted the amount through installments through ECS towards discharging the loan liability of the complainant from the account of the complainant maintained  with UBI. For one time settlement she has to file application only after approval from the head office. The loan account can not be finally settled without approval. But she did not approach the head office and approval not received. Inspite of that she wanted to pay the amount on her own calculation. Area Manager of Agartala Branch never interfered in that matter. Petitioner therefore is not entitled to get any relief and her complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

3.        On the basis of assertion denial made by the parties following points cropped up for determination;
        (I)Whether the O.P. imposed high interest rate and not given proper service after releasing the loan?
        (II)Whether there was deficiency of service by the O.P. and they are under obligation to pay compensation to the petitioner?

4.        Petitioner produced the statement on account dated 04.03.17, agreement copy, loan application form, certificate of policy schedule in respect of the insurance of the vehicle, power of attorney. E-mail, UBI Pass Book, Cheque, copy of statement & copy of Insurance Policy.
        Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of petitioner Kakali Paul and also another witness Sadhan Ch. Paul.

5.        O.P. on the other hand produced the original cheque issued by the complainant, loan agreement form, agreement copy, power of attorney. 
        O.P. also produced the statement on affidavit of Arindam Deb authorized signatory of Cholamandalam Investment Company. 

6.        On the basis of all these evidence and the written argument produced on behalf of complainant we shall now determine the above points.

            Findings and decision:

7.        We have gone through the loan agreement, loan application form and the statement of account. It is admitted and established fact that loan of Rs.3,73,000/- was released in favour of the complainant. From the repayment schedule it is found that in 55 installments the amount is to be repaid. Interest will be Rs.1,19,000/- in this period and principal Rs.3,73,000/-. Net amount Rs.5,42,573/- is to be paid in 55 installments on 25.09.2020 as last installment. 1st installment Rs.13,239/- is to be paid on 25.03.16. From the scrutiny of the statement of account it is found that 13 installments was paid and total Rs.1,33,133/- was paid as per statement dated 04.03.17. Out of Rs.1,33,133/-, Rs.82,988/- was paid as principal and Rs.50,144/- was paid as interest.

8.        We have gone through the payment schedule as produced by the complainant. As per payment schedule the payment of loan started from 25.03.16. installment amount was Rs.12,103/-. Out of that principal was Rs.70,47/- and interest was Rs.5,056/-. From the principal amount Rs.3,73,000/-, Rs.7,047/- was deducted and closing principal comes to Rs. 3,65,953/-. In this way schedule payment by 55 installments was given. In the last installment Rs.3448/-was the installment amount. Principal was Rs.3402/- and interest was Rs.46/- only. In this way details of the payment process is given and last installment is to be given on 25.09.2020. Petitioner wanted to close the loan payment after lapse of one year. She paid 13 installments and thereafter approached the O.P. for finalization of her loan payment. She wanted to pay whole principal amount at a time. O.P. told her that in case of precloser of the loan amount she has to give advance notice before 21 days to the company after complying formalities.

9.        In Para 8 of the written statement it is stated that she made the proposal for final payment and also made contact with the Agartala Branch of Cholamandalam. In Para 8 of the written statement it is stated that it is not possible for finance company to settle the loan amount only by paying principal amount. But it is not clarified that when the interest already paid and there is no claim for interest only the principal remained unpaid then why on payment of principal amount  the loan matter can not be settled. 

10.    We have gone through the statement dated 26.12.16 given by the Cholamandalam O.P. as per that statement Rs.13,239/- was deducted from the bank account of the petitioner vide ECS. Accordingly in 10 months 10 installments taken in the same rate i.e., Rs.13,239/-. We have gone through the statement of account dated 04.03.17. As per that statement the principal outstanding was Rs.2,81,000/-. No interest was outstanding on that date as interest Rs.50,144/- already paid through ECS from the savings account of the petitioner. At that stage petitioner prayed before both the O.P. No.1, & 2 for final payment of the loan amount. They advised her to approach the Head Office.

12.        On perusal of documents it is found that on 03.01.17 she wrote a letter to the O.P. No.1, Head Office for final payment of outstanding principal amount as per statement supplied by O.P. Photocopy of that letter is produced before us. In that letter it is stated that as 16% interest was claimed and it was excessive more than the rate of interest as promised by O.P. No.1 and 2. So, she wanted to pay the whole amount at a time. By assigning reason she sent the cheque for Rs.2,86,714/- for closure of the loan amount. We have gone through the correspondence made by her on different dates. She sent Email to the Head Office to O.P. No.1. It is found that O.P. No.1 also sent mail to the petitioner after receipt of the letter. In one mail it is written that request is received. It require essential internal procedure and they will respond. Again she sent a mail. Petitioner requested the O.P. not to deduct any installment by ECS as she paid the whole amount. She also complained against the Branch Manager, Udaipur for not helping her but no action was taken by the O.P. No.1, Head office of Cholamandalam. Head office sent mail thereafter also on 31.01.17. The customer petitioner again requested not to collect installment through ECS from her bank account. O.P. No.1 Chola in response informed her that they are in receipt of her request. It is under process and they will respond shortly. Thereafter again she sent reminder on February 3rd 2017. But the O.P. No.1, Head office of Cholamandalam did not take any step. Cheque was not encashed and the loan matter was not settled. O.P. No.1 continued to collect the installments through ECS from the SB Account of the petitioner even after filing of the case on 16.02.17. This court directed the O.P. No.1, 2 and 3 not to deduct the installment through ECS but inspite of that direction 1 installment was collected through ECS. 

13.        We have gone through the savings deposit account of the petitioner and found that Rs.13,239/- was taken on 25.01.17 after filing of the case when there was standing order for not deducting any installment. 

14.        Petitioner in her evidence stated that O.P. No.3 Branch Manager of Cholamandalam, Udaipur Branch assured her that interest rate will only be 6%. 

15.        We have gone through the application form filed by petitioner. As per application form interest written flat rate 6.41%. Gross IRR to customer/ CIFCL 16.27%. Net IRR 15.93%, required rate as per matrix 16.00%. This is very much confusing. In the schedule of agreement customer IRR is written 16.27% rate of additional interest per annum is written 48%.

16.        From the scrutiny of the documents it is found that petitioner was not in a position to understand the actual rate of interest. It is also not as per RBI Guideline. We have gone through the notification of 2013-2014 published on February 7, 2014 relating to the non banking financial. Notification DNBS(PD) CC.No.327/03.10.038/2012-13 published in May 31st 2013. In that notification dated 24,2007 also interest rate payable on public interest recommended to be revised up to 12% P.A. But we are not concerned on this point as because petitioner did not claim for lowering  the interest rate. She was only confused. The interest rate for car loan as per guideline of RBI is much lower and penalty can not be imposed for payment of loan at a pre stage before end of the period of payment. Then why the prayer of the petitioner for payment of loan amount at a time after lapse of one year not allowed by O.P. No.1, 2 and 3 not clear at all. O.P. No.1, 2 and 3 did not assign any reason for this.

17.        When the case was pending, at that time the cheque issued by the complainant in favour of O.P. No.1 was returned. The cheque dated 03.01.17 is returned by the O.P. No.1,2 and 3 through their lawyer without assigning any reason. 

18.        We have gone through the evidence given by O.P., Sri Arindam Deb. D.W.1 stated that they are ready to receive the application for closure of the account. He also stated that petitioner visited the Udaipur Branch and offered Rs.2,86,714/- for final settlement of the loan amount which is the principal loan amount so the Branch refused to accept the cheque. What more is the claim of O.P. not stated. As per the schedule of the loan payment more than Rs.50,000/- was paid as interest. So, petitioner was not supposed to pay any interest except the principal amount. 

19.        From the schedule of the payment it is found that principal amount Rs.2,81,000/- was due on 25.02.17.  Rs.2,90,011.70/- was due on 25.01.17. From the statement of account it is found that O.P. Cholamandalam collected insurance premium Rs.11,360/- without supplying any policy certificate or informing the petitioner that insurance was purchased for her vehicle. Insurance was purchased by the petitioner on purchasing vehicle from other company and she paid the premium for that. Cholamandalam is not supposed to purchase any policy certificate for her vehicle. No information given and policy certificate also not produced. Therefore such deduction of Rs.11,360/- and thereafter also premium for one month by mechanical process was unjust and uncalled for. We have gone through the policy certificate purchased by the petitioner for her vehicle. Chola is therefore duty bound to refund the amount collected from her account as insurance premium. 
        
20.        From the perusal of evidence on record and the documents produced it is found that O.P. made inordinate delay in respect of settlement of loan matter. It did not take step for closure of loan amount on receipt of principal amount Rs.2,86,714/-  as interest already paid and no interest was due. Penal interest can not be imposed. In such a stage why the O.P. did not agree to close the loan account on satisfaction of payment of principal outstanding not clear at all. Principal amount was Rs.2,81,000/- as per statement dated 04.03.17. Thereafter also one installment Rs.13,145/-deducted through ECS. So the amount stands Rs.2,67,855/-. This amount remained as principal outstanding. As per schedule of the payment of loan Rs.2,65,162/-, Rs.3,708/- was interest in this Rs.13,145/- That interest already paid. So, no claim of interest remained at all. Excessive interest was taken by O.Ps violating the guideline of RBI. The interest rate was not properly projected before the petitioner at the time of taking the loan. This are unfair trade practice. O.P. made inordinate delay in settlement of loan amount closure after receipt of cheque. This is deficiency of service by the O.P. No.1, 2 & 3. Relief can be claimed under Consumer Protection Act as this legislation is to give additional relief.

21.        We therefore direct the O.Ps to receive Rs.2,65,162/-. From this amount the insurance premium  Rs.11,360/- is to be refunded and thus the amount stands at Rs.2,53,802/-. The O.Ps are to receive the Rs.2,53,802/- as the petitioner agreed to pay the amount without challenging the interest rate. On receipt of this amount Rs.2,52,802/- the only outstanding claim the loan account should be closed. For the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice O.Ps, Cholamandalam are directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost total Rs.30,000/ both the points are decided accordingly. 

22.        In view of our above findings over the points the case is decided. We direct the O.Ps to close the loan account on receipt of Rs.2,53,802/- from petitioner and pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation and litigation cost to the petitioner. The amount is to be paid within one month and direction is to be followed within one month if not paid it will carry interest. O.P. are also directed to return 5 nos. of blank cheques taken from the complainant, copy of loan documents and the key of the car and stop realization of loan EMI ECS permanently.

                       Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.