Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

314/2009

R.Arunkanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Personal Finanace Division HSBC bank&o - Opp.Party(s)

Vinoth Kumar

18 Jun 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 30.12.2008

                                                                          Date of Order : 18.06.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.314 /2009

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 18^th DAY OF JUNE 2018

                                 

Mr. R. Arunkanna,

S/o. Mr. S.K. Raghupathy,

No.29, Annai Anjugam Nagar,

Karunathi Street,

Near Kolathur Police Station,

Kolathur,

Chennai – 600 099.                                                     .. Complainant.                                                          

 

..Versus..

 

1. The Manager,

Personal Finance Division,

HSBC Bank,

No.96, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,

Chennai – 600 004.

 

2. The Manager,

M/s. Sethia Advisory Services,

No.3 A, Sarangapani Street,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant           :  M/s. K. Ravi Kumar & another

Counsel for 1^st opposite party  :  M/s. S. Mothilal & another

Counsel for 2^nd opposite party :  Exparte

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to refund a sum of Rs.5,169/- charged towards processing fees and covert the interest at the rate of 16% to 25% p.a., to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay the cost of the complaint.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he is an Account holder in the 1^st opposite party bank and has availed the facility of personal loan by way of overdraft to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- vide his loan a/c No.041-807660-001.  The complainant further submits that through the 2^nd opposite party, the 1^st opposite party approached the complainant and offered to enhance his loan amount to the tune of Rs.2,30,000/-.  The complainant further submits that there would be no processing charges for the enhancement of the loan, the old account number would not be disturbed and the enhanced loan amount would be added in the old account number with the same interest of 16%.   Further the complainant submits that on 20.09.2007, the 1^st opposite party withdrawn a sum of Rs.5,169/- from his account number towards processing fees for the additional loan a/c No.042-282590-001.   This act clearly shows that the staff of the 2^nd opposite party had been indulging in aggressive marketing tactics making false promises thereby, luring the innocent customers who realize later that they were made a scape goat to achieve their marketing targets.  The complainant had insisted that he would fill in the column of interest per annum as 16% and other details and only then he would sign accordingly after filling up the form as 16% p.a. interest, he signed the loan application form.  But in the statement, in contrary to the loan application details, the opposite parties have reflected the interest as 25% per annum.  Due to the act of the opposite parties the complainant suffered untold hardship and mental agony.  Therefore the complainant issued a legal notice dated:14.11.2007 to the opposite parties but the opposite parties failed to give reply.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2.     The brief averments in the written version filed by the  1^st opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 1^st opposite party states that the allegations of the complainant in the complaint are imaginary and this complaint is filed with an intention to harass the opposite party and extracting money from the 1^st opposite party.  There is no understanding or offer to enhance the loan amount without processing fees or waiving the processing fees.  The 1^st opposite party states that there is nothing about the percentage of interest at the rate of 16% or 25%.  No person is authorised to make any such assurances and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.   The 1^st opposite party states that only after obtaining signature in the relevant loan documentation by the complainant, the loan had been processed.  The complainant has not filed any document to prove his allegations in the complaint.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     The notice was sent to the 2^nd opposite party and the cover was  returned by stating that “information delivered”. Hence the 2^nd opposite party was set Exparte as he was called absent.

4.   In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party filed and no documents filed and marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party.

5.     The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to refund for a sum of Rs.5,169/-collected by the opposite parties towards processing fees with interest as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief of charging interest at the rate of 16 % instead of 25% as prayed for?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost as prayed for?

6.     On point:-

The  2^nd opposite party remained Exparte.  The 1^st opposite party filed written arguments.  The complainant has not preferred to file written arguments and has not turned up to advance any oral argument also.   Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  The complainant pleaded in the complaint and stated in the proof affidavit that he is an Account holder in the 1^st opposite party bank and has availed the facility of personal loan by way of overdraft to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- vide his loan a/c No.041-807660-001. Further the contention of the complainant is that through the 2^nd opposite party, the 1^st opposite party approached the complainant and offered to enhance his loan amount to the tune of Rs.2,30,000/- merging with the old loan a/c with the same interest of 16%.   But neither the complainant nor the opposite parties produced any document to prove such contentions.   Further the complainant pleaded and contended that on 20.09.2007, the 1^st opposite party withdrawn a sum of Rs.5,169/- from his account number towards processing fees for the additional loan a/c No.042-282590-001 which is against the promise of the opposite party.  But the complainant has not proved such promise and the waiver of processing fees and the percentage of interest.  The complainant is claiming the amount collected by the opposite party towards processing fees and reducing the interest rate from 25% to 16% with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.   But the complainant has failed and neglected to prove such claim. 

7.     The contention of the opposite party is that the allegations of the complainant in the complaint are imaginary and this complaint is filed with an intention to harass the opposite party and extracting money from the opposite party.  There is no understanding or offer to enhance the loan amount without processing fees or waiving the processing fees.  Equally, there is nothing about the percentage of interest at the rate of 16% or 25%.  The complainant filed this complaint with an imaginary allegation to have some benefit unauthorisedly.   The complainant has not filed any document to prove his allegations except the legal notice which is self serving.   The complainant has not produced any document to prove such claim.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that, the complainant has not proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence the complaint has to be dismissed. 

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 18^th  day of June 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	14.11.2007	Copy of legal notice by the complainant to the opposite parties through Registered post with acknowledgement due
Ex.A2	15.11.2007	Copy of acknowledgement for the receipt of the legal notice by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A3		Copy of returned cover from the 2nd opposite party

 

1^ST OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT