DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK
Dated the 1st day of March, 2021
C.D Case No. 61 of 2018
Present 1. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Presiding Member
2. Afsara Begum, Member
Manju Muduli
W/O Late Gobinda Ch. Muduli
At/Po- Haladia, Ps- Bansada, Dist: Bhadrak, Odisha
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
- The Manager, Hinduja Leyland, Bhadrak Branch
At- By-pass, Po/Ps/Dist: Bhadrak- 756100
2. The Director, Hinduja Finance,
Sardar Patel Road, Guindy
Chennai- 600032, Tamilnadu
…………… Opposite parties
Counsel For Complainant: Sri B. Mohanty, Adv & Others
Counsel For the O.Ps : Sri P. K. Mishra, Adv
Date of hearing: 25.10.2019
Date of order: 01.03.2021
BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, PRESIDING MEMBER
This dispute arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The facts as narrated in the complaint are that the complainant is a poor widow earning her livelihood and to maintain her family from farming. To go for mechanized farming, the complainant wanted to acquire a tractor and accordingly approached OP No. 1 for a tractor on loan. OP No. 1 sanctioned a sum of Rs 3,90,000/- as loan instructing the complainant to pay back a sum of Rs 5,94,217/- including interest at the agreed rate in 47 Equated Monthly installments commencing from 23.11.2013 to 01.11.2017. Accordingly the complainant executed relevant documents and also submitted some signed blank cheques to the O.Ps on demand. Soon after availing the loan, the complainant went on repaying the loan installments on the due dates and in some cases the installments were paid off late. Finally during September, 2017 the O.Ps demanded to repay the loan outstanding under one time settlement scheme. The O.Ps demanded for payment of Rs 1,00,000/- to close the account which was agreed by the complainant and on 24.10.2017 the complainant paid a sum of Rs 1,00,000/- to close the loan account and requested the O.Ps to issue No Due Certificate. In reply to the request of complainant the O.Ps assured to issue NDC after a week as it is a time consuming process. But instated of issuing NDC, OP demanded for payment of a sum of Rs 60,779/- which is beyond the expectation of the complainant and once again requested the said O.Ps to issue NDC as he has paid a sum of Rs 8,17,311/- against the total demand of Rs 5,94,217/- within the last date of repayment period. When the O.Ps did not issue NDC in favour of the complainant, the complainant issued a legal notice requesting issue of NDC within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice which is not responded by the said O.Ps. Such action of the O.Ps to illegally demand more amount of Rs 42,486/- for payment by the complainant amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Being aggrieved with the activities of the O.Ps, the complainant instituted the present case in the present Commission praying for a direction to O.Ps to refund Rs 2,23,094/- along with cost and compensation and to issue No Due Certificate in favour of the complainant.
The O.Ps objected the claim of the complainant and contested the case. Primarily the O.Ps raised the question of maintainability of the case in the present Commission in citing a decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2015 (4) CPR-148(NC) wherein it is mentioned that the cases pertaining to financing and advancement of loan relates to accounting does not fall within the preview of Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. In submitting written version the O.Ps have also raised the question about the status of the complainant as a consumer and denied the allegations of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint. Secondly the O.Ps also raised the question of Territorial Jurisdiction as the matter need to be adjudicated in arbitration by the arbitrator. Further it is also stated by the O.Ps that the complainant has acquired the vehicle for commercial purpose, not for earning her livelihood. In the above premises it is stated by the O.Ps that the present case is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed with cost.
Evidently the complainant has availed a loan of Rs 3,90,000/- for acquisition of a tractor from OP No. 1 which was sanctioned and disbursed in due course. According to the agreement executed, the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs 5,94,217/- including interest at the agreed rate to the O.Ps commencing from 23.11.2013 to 01.11.2017 in 47 Equated Monthly installments. The complainant has paid the installments regularly excepting some installments the complainant has failed to pay on or before due dates but the complainant has repaid the more amount over and above the total demand within the last date fixed for repayment. Secondly as regards to maintainability of the case in the present Commission O.Ps have raised that the dispute will be settled by arbitration within the jurisdiction as would be decided by the O.Ps. But in the instant case the complainant has issued legal notice to the O.Ps on dt. 31.03.2018, requesting the O.Ps to refund the excess amount deposited by the complainant together with interest which was not responded by the said O.Ps. It is the responsibility of the O.Ps to appoint arbitrator for the said dispute within the territorial jurisdiction but the O.Ps did not do the same till the date of filing this case on 07.09.2018. From the said facts it is understood that the O.Ps have not taken care of the matter and deliberately delayed the appointment of arbitrator and slept over the matter for a long period which amounts to deficiency of service. Further the O.Ps have realized Rs 8,17,311/- as against the total payable amount of Rs 5,94,217/- within the stipulated date which is much excess in consideration of the Commission. Furthermore when there is deficiency of service with regards to issue of No Due Certificate which proves that the O.Ps have caused deficiency of service and realization of excess amount over and above the agreed value of Rs 5,94,217/- amounts to unfair trade practice.
In the above backdrop it is crystal that the O.Ps have exorbitantly charged interest on the loan amount violating the settled position of law which is illegal and unfair. Hence in the opinion of the Commission the objections raised by the O.Ps are not tenable. Hence ordered;
ORDER
In the result, the complaint be and the same is allowed against the O.Ps with cost and compensation. O.Ps are directed to refund the excess amount realized of Rs 2,23,094/- and deduct the amount of overdue interest @ 1% over and above the normal interest on the defaulted amount and issue NOC in favour of the complainant. Further the O.Ps are directed to pay Rs 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs 2,000/- towards cost of litigation. This order must be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
This order is pronounced in the open Court on this day of 1st March, 2021 under my hand and seal of the Commission.
