DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2023
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 15/02/2021
CC/27/2021
Ramlath,
W/o. Muhammed Rafeeq,
K.P.M. Manzil, Kattutheruvu,
Pudunagaram (P.O.),
Chittur, Palakkad – 678 503 - Complainant
(By Adv. M.C. Kuriachan)
Vs
Manager,
HDB Financial Services,
Kunnathurmedu (PO), Palakkad – 678 013. - Opposite party
(OP by Adv. M/s. Viju K. Raphel & Siby P. Jose)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Crux of the pleadings is that the complainant had availed a financial assistance from the opposite party NBFC to a tune of Rs.13 lakhs with interest @9.5% per annum. But the opposite party had credited Rs.12,57,734/- alone. When enquired about the reduction of Rs.42,266/- the opposite party informed that the said amount would be credited when the loan was to be closed. Subsequent to the amount being credited to the complainant’s account she found that the rate of interest charged is 14% and not 9.5% as assured by the opposite party. Since the interest rate was exorbitant she decided to avail a loan from Punjab National Bank and pre-closed the financial assistance availed from the OP. At the time of closure the opposite parties levied an amount of Rs.61,067.94 towards pre-payment charges @4.76% of loan amount and Rs.5,987.20 towards pre-payment charges. Thus the complainant had to repay Rs.13,48,248.43/- in all. Thereafter the OP also demanded that the complainant pay an amount of Rs.20,185/- as one additional EMI. Aggrieved by such exorbitant levying of charges this complaint is filed seeking return of Rs.42,266/-, and other amounts charged illegally by the O.P.
- The opposite party filed version denying the complaint allegations stating that the opposite parties had not at any time deviated from the terms and conditions upon which the financial assistance was granted to the complainant. At the time of disbursal the following amounts were deducted towards various charges.
- Processing charges : Rs.15,340
- Stamp duty : Rs. 500
- HDFC Ergo Insurance premium : Rs. 4,602
- HDFC Slic Credit Protect Premium : Rs.19,684
- Cersai charges : Rs. 118
It was this amount that was deducted before crediting the loan account to the complainant’s account. The pre-closure charges and other charges debited were also in accordance with the schedule of charges which formed part of the terms and conditions. Therefore the opposite parties sought for dismissal of the compliant.
- The following issues were framed by this Commission:
1. Whether the deduction of Rs.42,266/ from the total sanctioned loan amount is as per loan agreement ?
2. Whether levying of pre-closure charges and interest by the opposite party is legal and in accordance with the agreement?
3. Whether the O.P. has deducted any amount from the complainant’s account after closing the loan?
4. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to the amounts sought for in the relief, other than compensation?
6. Reliefs as to cost and compensation?
4. (i) Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. A1 to A6.
(ii) Marking of Exhibits A1 to 3, 5 and 6 were objected to on the ground they were photocopies. Since this Commission is not bound by the strait jackets of Indian Evidence Act and in the absence of a contention on the part of opposite party that these documents were forged or concocted, objection raised by the opposite party is rejected.
(iii) Eventhough an application (I.A. 594/2022) filed by the O.P. seeking to cross examine the complainant was allowed, the complainant failed to appear before this Commission to stand trial. Hence oral evidence of the complainant was done away with. Subsequently, the complainant filed an application as I.A. 401/2023 to reopen the evidence which was allowed on terms. But the complainant yet again failed to appear before this Commission and to comply with the terms under which I.A. 401/2023 was allowed. Hence order in I.A. 401/2023 was forfeited. Thereafter complainant filed I.A. 540/2023 to reopen the order in I.A. 401/2023. Considering the continuous absence of the complainant, this application was dismissed.
(iv) Counsel for the O.P. argued at the time of hearing that since the complainant had, by her willful conduct, refused to adduce evidence, thereby denying the O.P. a chance to sanctify or discredit the evidence, documentary evidence adduced by the complainant had to be eschewed in toto. We differ with this proposition. Objection submitted to the documents submitted by the complainant was that they were photocopies. No other objection was forthcoming. Further, we find that the said documents are all in support of admitted facts. Hence the proposition of the O.P. is disallowed. But any adverse inference that can be availed can be resorted to in the event such an eventuality rises.
(v) O.P. filed proof affidavit marked Exhibits B1 and B2. There was no objection whatsoever in marking the said documents.
Issue No. 1
5. First grievance of the complainant was with regard to the deduction of Rs. 42,266/- from the total sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 13,00,000/-. Said deduction is admitted. But O.P. relied on the contents in Ext. B1 terms and conditions to justify the deductions. Schedule III of Ext. B1 shows the deductions made. Ext. B1 was marked without any objection. Further the complainant had not taken any step to cross examine the O.P., who could have shed some light on the legal validity of debiting the amounts as evidenced by Ext. B1 schedule III or as pre-closure charges.
6. Thus the complainant had failed to prove that there is any illegality in deduction of Rs.42,266/- from the total sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 13,00,000/-.
Issue Nos. 2 & 3
7. Next question pertains to the nature of pre-closure amounts deducted as well as the additional EMI allegedly debited from the complainant.
8. As already held in paragraph 6 supra, the complainant had not taken any step to prove their case. They did not have any objection to marking of Ext. B1 or the contents therein. Hence on this account also, the complainant has failed to prove any illegality or unconscionability in the deduction made by the O.P.
Issue Nos. 4, 5 & 6
9. Resultantly, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.
10. The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
12. With the above findings, we dismiss the complaint.
Pronounced in open court on this the 13th day of October, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/- Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of relevant pages of pass book belonging to M/s.KPM Bakery
Ext.A2(series) – Copy of Terms and conditions of loan
Ext.A3 – Copy of pre-payment of loan communication
Ext.A4 - Copy of letter dated 11/11/2020
Ext.A5 – Copy of closure letter
Ext.A6 – Copy of loan sanction letter dated 20/11/2020
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
Ext.B1 – Copy of loan agreement
Ext.B2 – Indecipherable copy of loan application
Court Exhibit: Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Court Witness: Nil
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
