Date of filing : 15.10.2009<br /> Date of Order: 30.04.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2404 OF 2009<br /> <br /> Rani Prabhakar<br /> W/o. Prabhakar<br /> Balaji Jewelery Works<br /> No. 143, 11th Cross, Vyalikaval<br /> Malleswaram, Bangalore 03 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> The Manager<br /> Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd.<br /> No. 765, 1st Floor, LCR Complex<br /> 1st Main, 5th Cross, Yeshwanthpur<br /> Bangalore 560 022 Opposite party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The facts of the case are that opposite party has sanctioned loan of Rs. 75,000/- to the complainant with an EMI of Rs. 4,469/- payable in 24 months. Complainant has given 7 blank cheques to opposite party. To the shock and surprise of the complainant, opposite party has credited only Rs. 66,102/- to the account of the complainant. They have deducted sum of Rs. 8,898/- towards processing fee, credit shield, stamping charges, service taxes etc. Opposite party subscribed to the insurance policy without the knowledge of the complainant. This amounts to deficiency of service. Only on issue of notice opposite party disclosed the details of deduction. Complainant requested to rearrange the EMI covering actual amount of Rs. 66,102/- or to cancel the insurance policy. It is also the case of complainant that she has lodged police complaint at Yeshwanthpur Police Station on 02.09.2009. Therefore, the complainant prayed that opposite party be directed to cancel the insurance policy and to rearrange the payment schedule. Alternatively, complainant asked that she may be allowed to clear the loan in easy installments with simple interest.<br /> 2. The opposite party filed defence version stating that complaint is not maintainable. Opposite party sanctioned loan of Rs. 75,000/- on the terms and conditions of loan. There is no cause of action to file complaint. Deduction towards insurance policy is to safe guard the finance facility extended in case of death of beneficiary. Complainant has authorised the opposite party to deduct the same vide letter dated 20.07.2009. She has also received the policy on the same day. Opposite party has clarified the grievance of the complainant. If at all the complainant was bonafied she could have paid the loan installments. Complainant still committed breach of contract and violated the terms of agreement. Complainant has come to the forum with unclean hands. Therefore, the opposite party has prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Respective parties have filed affidavit evidence and documents.<br /> 4. Arguments are heard.<br /> 5. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief? <br /> 6. Admittedly, the complainant has applied for loan with the opposite party. Application for grant of loan has been produced and she has signed on the loan application and also on the declaration. The opposite party has disbursed loan amount of Rs. 66,102/-. Rs. 8,898/- was deducted towards processing fee, credit shield (Insurance), Stamping charges and service taxes etc. EMI fixed was Rs. 4,469/- and tenure of loan was 24 months. This detail has been supplied to the complainant by the opposite party on 24.07.2009. It is the case of the opposite party that as per the loan sanction letter complainant has not paid the installments. The complainant submitted during the course of argument that only one installment has been paid so far. Therefore, there is considerable force in the opposite party objection that the complainant is a defaulter. He cannot complain of deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The complainant is not regular in payment of EMI. She has to go a long way out of 24 EMIs, she has paid only one EMI. Therefore, the present complaint is premature one. Even if there is any grievance of complainant in respect of payment of insurance premium and other charges levied by the opposite party that matter shall have to be resolved or settled at the time of closing the loan account. The complainant has to go on paying the EMIs. Without paying EMI and complainant herself is a defaulter she has given complaint of deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Charging processing fee and service tax and giving premium for obtaining insurance policy cannot be considered as deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The sanction of loan is subjected to terms and conditions of loan agreement. The parties have to follow all the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. If at all the opposite party has acted illegally without any authorization that matter can be sorted out at the time of closing of loan account not at this stage. The RBI has constituted Banking Ombudsman for settling disputes between customers and financial institutions. If the complainant has got any grievance against opposite party she has to file complaint before the Banking Ombudsman and her grievance will be settled or decided by the Banking Ombudsman. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any relief from this fora at this stage. Complainant alternatively asked for cancellation of loan and allow her to clear the loan in easy installments. This prayer also cannot be granted. This is up to the complainant to preclose loan. Nobody prevents her for closing loan account. The complainant has to settle the matter with the opposite party Company by negotiation. If she wants to cancel the loan and to preclose loan account she will be free to do so. Therefore, no specific order is required for preclosing the loan account. By reading entire complaint averments we cannot make out any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Therefore, there is no merit in the complaint. Complainant cannot ask for cancellation of insurance policy which had already been taken at the time of sanction of loan. The opposite party has taken consent of the complainant for taking insurance policy. Therefore, at this stage it is not possible to cancel the insurance policy obtained at the time of taking loan. Taking any view of the matter the complainant is not entitled for any relief asked by her in her complaint. However, the complainant can sort out the problem with the opposite party by negotiation and talk. It is up to the opposite party to reschedule the EMI as per the request of the complainant. No direction is required to the opposite party to reschedule repayment of loan. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 7. The complaint is dismissed.<br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />