COMPLAINT FILED ON: 09/02/2011
DISPOSED ON:16.08.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
16th DAY OF AUGUST 2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT No.275/2011
Complainant OPPOSITE PARTY | Anand. G S/o Mr. Gangathimmaiah, Aged about 32 years, No.4/16, C/o, Shiva Kumar C, Sri.Veerabadraswamy Nilaya, 17th Cross, Ashwath Katte Road, Hoysala Nagar, Bangalore-72. Adv:Sri.Dinesh Hegde. V/s. Represented by it’s the Manager, Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Limited, No.1, Raheja Chancery, 133, Brigade Road, Bangalore-01. Adv:Sri.S.Manjunath. |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund 2 EMI amounts each Rs.1,350/- and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with costs of the proceedings on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
2. The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:
The complainant has taken personal loan from OP-Bank on 14.07.2007 amount of Rs.28,595/- Tenure months:36, EMI Rs.1,350/- p.m, loan instalments commencing from 05.08.2007 to 05.07.2010. He has already paid loan instalment amount but OP had taken extra one loan EMI from complainant through ECS from Syndicate Bank Account, New account No.0450/201/0083994. During the pendency of this proceedings, OP has taken another EMI of Rs.1,350/-. OP is demanding one year EMI but the complainant has already paid the amount. Due to the illegal activities of OP, the complainant has been put to irreparable loss and mental agony. Legal notice dt.07.12.2010 was issued calling upon OP to redress the grievances of the complainant by giving suitable compensation, OP has not replied for the same. Hence the complaint.
3. On appearance OP1 filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable, the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands. The complainant has defaulted in making the payment of the equal monthly instalments and has failed to fulfill its obligations under the Loan Agreement signed between the parties. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Op. It is stated that the complainant has availed personal loan of Rs.30,000/- but not only Rs.28,595/- which was repayable in 48 EMIs of Rs.1,350/- each, out of which only 37 EMIs were paid. An amount of Rs.28,595/- was disbursed to the complainant, after deduction of an amount of Rs.1,405/- towards processing fee and other statutory charges. It is specifically denied that OP took any extra EMI from the complainant. The complainant has been continuously defaulting in making the payment of the scheduled EMIs since the month of September-2010. OP has duly replied the legal notice and informed the complainant about due EMI’s and advised complainant to adhere to the repayment schedule. The complainant is not entitled to any of the relief claimed, the complainant may be directed to clear the rest of the EMI’s due to the OP. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. The complainant in order to substantiate the complaint averments filed affidavit evidence and produced documents. The P.A. Holder of the OP filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version and produced documents.
5. The complainant filed Written Arguments.
6. Arguments on both sides heard.
7. Points for consideration are:
Point No.1:- Whether the complainant has proved
the deficiency in service on the part
of the OP?
Point No.2:- If so, whether the complainant is
entitled for the relief now claimed?
Point No.3:- To what Order?
8. We record our findings on the above points are:
Point No.1:- Affirmative.
Point No.2:- Affirmative in part.
Point No.3:- As per final Order.
R E A S O N S
9. The complainant claims that he has availed personal loan from OP finance amounting to Rs.28,595/- on 14.07.2007 repayable in 36 equal monthly instalments of Rs.1,350/- and he has paid the entire instalments due. Despite that OP has taken extra one EMI from complainant through ECS from Syndicate Bank Account and further during the pendency of this proceedings another EMI of Rs.1,350/- has been taken. Those two EMIs of each Rs.1,350/- is taken extra, by OP, the same is to be refunded.
10. The defence of the Op is the complainant availed personal loan of Rs.30,000/- repayable in 48 EMIs of Rs.1,350/- each, out of which only 37 EMIs were paid. It is stated that an amount of Rs.28,595/- was disbursed to the complainant, after deduction of an amount of Rs.1,405/- towards processing fee and other statutory charges. Thus it is stated that the complainant defaulted in making payment of the schedule EMIs, OP has not taken any extra EMIs as contended by the complainant, the complaint is not maintainable, the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. It may be noted that the main controversy between the parties is as to whether the personal loan availed was repayable in 36 EMIs as contended by the complainant or 48 EMIs as contended by the OP. The main document which has been produced by the complainant in support of his contention is copy of the loan tenure letter issued by OP marked as document No.4. As per the said letter, OP has issued cheque dt.14.07.2007 for Rs.28,595/- towards finance of Personal Loan by deducting Rs.1,405/- towards Processing Fee. Further it is specifically stated that the instalment will fall due on the 5th of every month commencing from 05.08.2007 to 05.07.2010 onwards. The instalment amount is Rs.1,350/-. From this document it is crystal clear that the personal loan was repayable in monthly instalment of Rs.1,350/- and the instalment commencing from 05.08.2007 to 05.07.2010. Thus the EMIs from 05.08.2007 to 05.07.2010 will be ‘of 36 EMIs but not 48 EMIs as claimed by OP. If that the EMIs were 48, the period mentioned in the letter could have been from 05.08.2007 to 05.07.2011. Thus we are unable to accept the defence of the OP that the loan amount was repayable in 48 EMIs.
12) As per the defence version OP has executed the loan agreement agreeing to make the payment in instalments but Op has not produced the said material document to through light on the disputed question. Had the OP produced the loan agreement showing the total EMIs at 48, it would have been the best evidence in support of defence version. Non-production of the material peace of documentary evidence (loan agreement) leads to draw adverse inference against the OP to the effect that had that document produced it would have been gone against the defence of the OP. Merely because in the Account Statements produced as Annexure-A the instalment are shown as 48 EMIs it cannot be said that the loan was repayable in 48 EMIs. The loan advanced is Rs.30,000/-, 36 EMIs at the rate of 1,350/- works out at Rs.48,600/-. Thus an amount of Rs.30,000/- is towards principle and Rs.18,600/- towards interest. Therefore it cannot be said that 36 EMIs could not have been agreed for the loan of Rs.30,000/- advanced. Under these circumstances, it becomes clear that OP has recovered extra 2 EMIs of each Rs.1,350/- totally amounting to Rs.2,700/-. Op is liable to refund that amount to the complainant. The act of OP in recovering the extra premium, amounts to deficiency in service.
13. The complainant is claiming compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental and physical agony suffered on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the Op. OP in spite of receipt of the entire EMIs of 36 was not justified in collecting extra two EMIs, which has caused the complainant to suffer mental agony and physical strain. The complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.2,700/- (the amount of Two EMI each of Rs.1,350/-) and pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-to the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 16th day of AUGUST-2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
