IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 22nd day of January, 2022.
Filed on 05.10.2019
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc., LL.B (President )
- Smt.P.R Sholy, B.A.L, LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.249/2019
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Vinod Kumar C V 1. The Manager
S/o Vikraman Nair M/s Hinduja Leyland Finance-
Charivukalayil House Company Ltd., 2nd floor,
Kozhuvallor P.O. Ambili Building, Warriam -
Chengannur-689521 Road, Cochin
(Adv. Joseph George)
2. The Authorised Signatory
M/s Hinduja Leyland Finance-
Company Ltd.,Corporate office
Sardar Pattel Road, Guindy
Chennai.
(Adv. P.C.Manjusha)
O R D E R
SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Material averments briefly stated are as follows:-
On 23.08.16 complainant availed a loan of Rs.10 lakhs from the opposite parties in respect of vehicle TATA Hitachi TMS 20. As per the agreement complainant is liable to pay installments starting from 07.10.17 and the tenure was 36 months. The last date for payment was on 07.09.19. EMI was calculated fixing the interest at flat rate.
2. The total amount payable by the complainant will be Rs.13,00,000/-. EMI was @ Rs/35,403/- and for the last installment the principal amount payable was Rs.27,070/- and the interest was Rs.8333/-. Complainant paid the last installment of Rs.35500/- on 31.05.19 through SBI Kozhuvallor branch. On 15.06.19 complainant informed the opposite party for collecting the balance amount of Rs.2,21,500/- and requesting to issue no objection certificate. However after discussion the agent of the opposite parties demanded an amount of Rs.3,21,500/-ie, Rs.1 lakh in excess as penal interest. Opposite parties are not authorized to collect penal interest from the complainant, since the interest was calculated at flat rate. Hence the complaint is filed for giving a direction to the opposite parties to collect an amount of Rs.2,21,500/- as the balance amount payable. Direction may also be given to issue no objection certificate for cancellation of hypothecation of the said vehicle otherwise may be directed to produce all the accounts for settling the loan account.
Opposite parties No.1 and 2 filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
3. The complaint is filed with distorted facts to mislead this Commission. The details of vehicle, loan amount, contract date, 1st and last date of installments and tenure are true but the interest rate are not correct. Complainant shall repay the loan amount as per the agreed terms ie.8.38 % of the interest (15.19 IRR). The total amount payable stated is not correct.
4. The last installment paid by complainant was on 31.05.19. When the complainant demanded NOC opposite parties informed him about the balance payment and after discussion complainant was reluctant to repay the balance amount. Towards the settlement of loan account complainant has to repay an amount of Rs.4,40,198/-. Opposite parties possessed all the right to realise the loan amount from the assets of the complainant. Complainant had to pay Rs.10,78,500/- to this opposite parties towards the loan account. The balance amount payable as per the agreed terms is Rs.4,40,198/-. There is no deficiency of service and the intention of the complainant is only to drag the matter and only to delay the repayment. Complainant is not entitled for any relief and hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
5. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service as alleged in the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get an order against the opposite parties to settle the account by collecting an amount of Rs.2,21,500/- as prayed for?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get an order for issuing no objection certificate for cancellation of hypothecation?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get a order against the opposite parties for production of documents for settling the loan account ?
- Reliefs and cost?
6. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 & A2 from the side of the complainant. Opposite parties have not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary.
7. Point Nos.1 to 4
PW1 is the complainant in this case. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext. A1 & A2.
8. The case of PW1, the complainant is that on 23.08.16 he availed a loan of Rs.10 lakhs from the opposite parties with respect to a vehicle Tata Hitachi by executing an agreement on 23.08.16. As per the agreement he has to pay installments starting from 07.10.16 and the last date of payment was on 07.04.19. The total amount to be repaid including interest is Rs.13 lakhs and the EMI was Rs.35,403/-. According to him he has paid total amount of Rs.10,78,000/- and the balance payable is Rs.2,21,500/-. However opposite parties demanded Rs.1 lakhs more ie, Rs.3,21,500/- for issuing the NOC. Hence he has filed the complaint for giving a direction to the opposite parties to issue the NOC by collecting an amount of Rs.2,21,500/-. Opposite parties filed a version admitting the loan transaction. However according to them there was no regular repayment and so they are entitled to collect additional interest on delayed payment. They admitted that complainant had paid Rs.10,78,500/- and the balance amount payable is Rs.4,40,198/-. They contended that there is no deficiency of service and the complainant himself is in fault by the delaying the repayment. Complainant got examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 and A2. The legal officer and power of attorney holder of the opposite parties though filed a proof affidavit on 19.11.21 he was not available for cross examination.
9. The fact that PW1 availed a loan by executing agreement is not in dispute. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement the last date of payment was on 07.04.19 which is mentioned in Ext.A2 account statement. The loan amount was Rs.10 lakhs and the interest was Rs.3 lakhs. The total amount was to be repaid by 36 equal monthly installments. Admittedly PW1 has not repaid the entire amount. According to him an amount of Rs.2,21,500/- is due and he is ready to pay the same. During cross examination PW1 admitted that though initially he repaid the amount promptly later there was delay. There was no regular repayment on 07th of every month. For the delayed payment PW1 is bound to pay additional interest. He is also bound to pay cheque bounce charges.
10. Admittedly the last date of repayment was on 07.09.19. Without repaying the entire amount complaint is filed on 05.10.19stating that he is bound to pay only Rs.2,21,500/-. The agreement is not produced by both parties and so the terms and conditions are not known. However PW1 admitted that he is bound to pay additional charge for delayed payments. Admittedly there was no regular repayment on 7th of every month. So opposite parties are entitled to collect additional interest. It is also noticed that certain cheques were bounced and the opposite parties are entitled to collect amount for the same also. From Ext.A2 statement it is seen that complainant had paid only Rs.10,43,000/- and the last date of payment shown is 07.04.19. According to PW1 he is bound to pay only Rs.2,21,500/- Per contra according to learned counsel appearing for opposite parties an amount of Rs.4,43,000/- is due from him including additional interest. As stated earlier though the legal officer and power of attorney holder of the opposite parties filed proof affidavit he was not available for cross examination. From the evidence on record and from the admission of PW1 it can be seen that the entire amount was not repaid on or before 07.09.19 as per the terms and conditions of agreement executed between the parties. PW1 admitted that he is bound to pay additional interest for the delayed payment. Since PW1 has not paid the entire amount as per the agreement it cannot be said that there was deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties. The contention of PW1 that he is bound to pay only Rs.2,21,500/- appears to be not correct since the transaction was not closed on 07.09.19 as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. As stated earlier without repaying the amount on 07.09.19 ie, the last date of payment as per the agreement the complaint is filed on 05.10.19 on a contention that he is bound to pay only Rs.2,21,500/-. Since PW1 could not prove any deficiency of service no order can be passed. PW1 himself is in fault by not repaying the amount as per the agreement executed between the parties. As admitted by PW1 opposite parties are entitled to collect additional interest for delayed payment. Hence no order can be passed against the opposite parties to collect an amount ofRs.2,21,500/- and issue no objection certificate since the amount payable is more than that. In such circumstances complainant is not entitled to get a favourable order against the opposite parties and so these points are found against the complainant.
11. Point No.5
In the result complaint is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their respective cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 22nd day of January, 2022.
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)
Sd/-Smt.P.R Sholy (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Vinodkumar.C.V(complainant)
Ext.A1 - Pay Slip
Ext.A2 - Statement of Account
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
