Complainant Ms. Arti Sood through the present complaint has sought the necessary directions to the opposite parties to levy the interest @ 8% per annum as per policy agreement and as per the assurance and the amount already paid by her may kindly be ordered to be adjusted. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as damages by way of compensation for mental agony and harassment caused by them alongwith Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that she had purchased a punto car maker FIAT, model ‘Grade Punto Dynamic’ from Hind Motors (India) Limited, 15, Gundustuial Area, Phase 8 – Chandigarh vide invoice No.9430 dated 15.03.2010 for Rs.5,45,274/- on hypothecation with the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.2 vide DD No.988240 dated 17.03.2010 drawn on State Bank of India, Chandigarh has paid the amount on account of vehicle cost. In the hypothecation agreement it was agreed by the opposite party no.2 that the complainant to deposit Rs.10,000/- as the down payment and 8% simple interest would be charged on the remaining principle amount and the same would be repaid by her as EMI of Rs.9474/- per month, which would include the principle amount as well as the interest @ 8% P.A. for a period of five years but the opposite party charged interest @ 10% per annum right from beginning of the loan agreement. Even it was contrary to the statement of opposite party. A letter dated 15.9.2014 was sent to the opposite parties but opposite party never replied to the letters and her requests and had only supplied one statement of accounts of car loan Account No.31096656618 and one letter No.2014-15/149 dated 22.09.2014, in which it has been acknowledge by the opposite party no.2 that the rate of interest to be calculated was fixed @ 8% P.A. but in order to safeguard their own interest have falsely alleged that “as per the scheme for the first year it was 8% fixed and 10% for the next two years and thereafter floating rate of the interest as per spread below/above SBAR as applicable on the date of sanction”. The averment referred above clearly reflects the unprofessional attitude and working of the opposite party no.1. She has further pleaded that at the time of entering into the policy agreement the executive/official of the opposite party no.2 obtained her signatures upon some blank agreement papers, which were charged @ 8% P.A. while now their own statements of accounts establishes the facts that the interest rate was charged @ 10% PA right from the beginning of the policy agreement. She has duly compiled with all the terms and conditions as specified in the policy agreement, but opposite party acting in an unfair manner did not respond to her requests. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form; no cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the opposite party for filing the present complaint and the complainant has filed the present false complaint by concocting a false story and dragged the opposite parties in false litigation, as such the complainant is liable to be burdened with special costs. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant purchased car for a total sum of Rs.5,45,274/- and opposite party no.2 vide DD No.988240 dated 17.3.2010 drawn on State Bank of India, Chandigarh has paid the amount on account of the vehicle cost. It was incorrect that 8% simple interest would be charged on the remaining principal amount and the same would be repaid by the complainant as EMI of Rs.9474/- per month which would include principal amount as well as interest charge @ 8% P.A. for a period of five years. The complainant availed loan facility under SBI New Car Loan Scheme Offer in which rate of interest was as under:-
First year : 8% fixed
For year 2 and 3 : 10% fixed
After 3 years : Card rate on the date of sanction on floating rate basis. No other interest concession will be given under any tie up arrangement or otherwise below this offer rate. As on 25.4.2015 an amount of Rs.94,475/- was outstanding against the complainant. The opposite party no.2 issued two notices to the complainant for making payment but the complainant managed to return the envelope containing notice after reading its contents in connivance with postal agency. The complainant is fully aware about the above mentioned rates of interest, but instead of making remaining payment the complainant has filed the present false complaint by concealing the above mentioned facts. The opposite parties had rightly charging interest as per rules. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand, Sh.Joginder Pal Thapa, Branch Manager S.B.I. tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-7 and closed the evidence.
6. We have carefully examined and thoroughly considered the evidence along with its supporting documents as available on ‘records’ of the proceedings in the backdrop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the participating litigants along with the scope of ‘judicial inference’ that may be discretionarily determined on account of other collaterals including the non-submission of simple documentary evidence vital to resolve the dispute, in issue. We find that the present complaint pertains to the applicability and subsequent determination of the appropriate ‘rate of interest’ for the Car Loan A/c advanced by the opposite party Bank to the present complainant.
7. We find that the complainant has firmly and repeatedly alleged (deposed Ex.C1) having availed of the present car-loan from the opposite party Bank at the fixed rate of interest set at 8% PA (simple) for the entire period of Loan but has failed to produce any cogent evidence to support his assertion. The documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C7 do pass but for ‘secondary evidence’ only; whereas Ex.C8 updates (on 01.12.2015) ROI to 9.80% PA for the women borrowers. It is not understood as to why the complainant as well as the OP Bank have both ignored to produce the related sanction letter/ loan agreement/terms & conditions of sanction that would have facilitated the ‘resolve’ to the present dispute.
8. However, we find that the OP produced (Ex.OP7) details of New Scheme SBI Ezee Car Loan Scheme as applicable to Car Term Loans w e f 01.07.2009 to 30.09.2010 (date extended) somewhat assist to determine the applicable ROI (rate of interest) as: 8% fixed for First Year, 10% fixed for 2nd & 3rd years and the Bank’s ‘card rate’ after 3rd year onwards. The car-loan in question was sanctioned/ disbursed on 17.03.2010 (Ex.OP2) as such the above ROI (Ex.OP7) shall be appropriately applicable to the present Loan A/c and the opposite party Bank has duly confirmed (deposed Ex.OP1) having applied ‘interest’ at the applicable said rates, as above.
9. In the light of the all above, we find that the titled opposite parties Bank have been providing its Banking Services to the present complainant in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions; as such the present complaint gets devoid of the statutory merit under the Act and thus we order for its dismissal with however no orders as to its costs.
10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
June 09, 2016. Member
*MK*
