DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.



Complaint no.763 of 20.12.2007. Date of Order 17.3.2009.



Rajesh Bhatia son of Sh. Moti Sagar Bhatia, messers New Bhatia Processors, shop no.13, Ist Floor, Indira Market, Gill Road, Ludhiana 141 003.



….Complainant.

Versus



1- ABN AMRO Bank, N.V. Loan Centre, Room no.205, IInd Floor, Mater Trust Building, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana 141 001 through Manager.

2- Santosh Mathur, Collection Manager, Messers ABN AMRO Bank, N.V. Hansalya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110 001.

3- City Collections India Pvt. Ltd. Federal Bank Building, IIIrd Floor, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana 141 001 through Managing Director.

….Opposite parties.



COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:

Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.



Present: Sh. R.K. Nayyar Adv. for the complainant.

Sh. H.S. Marshal Adv. for opposite parties.



O R D E R



T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:



1- Complainant applied for personal loan to opposite party no.1 and obtained loan of Rs.2,91,500/-. Same was returnable in 48 equal monthly installments of Rs.8490/-, attracting 7.5% interest p.a. Opposite party no.1 got executed DP note dated 21.6.2005, agreement of guarantee deed alongwith Schedule-I, for repayment of loan sanctioned under account no.9204846. 48 blank cheques bearing signatures of the complainant, were also taken by opposite party. Opposite party collected installments upto January, 2006 of Rs.8490/- each and complainant requested opposite party no.1 and their agents opposite party no.3, to give attested copies of application for sanction of loan, letter of sanction, terms for disbursement, DP note, agreement got executed from the complainant. But they failed to provided him the documents. But opposite party had simply sent a sheet “Collection & Past Due Inquiry”, showing account number of loan, adjustment of 5 installments on various dates, consisting of principal amount and interest and balance due, but the sheet did not disclose the amount advanced as loan and the rate of interest charged. Therefore, issued legal notice dated 6.3.2006 to all opposite parties. After that notice, opposite party handed over fax copy of DP note, copy of loan application, agreement and guarantee deed, history of account number from June, 2005 to March, 2006, computerized collection and past due inquiry, detailing interest and principle amount of installments, showing balance of Rs.2,69,801.80, computerized repayment schedule for loan. But opposite party no.1 failed to give break-up details of outstanding amount of Rs.2,69,801.80. Earlier, opposite party no.2& 3 on behalf of opposite party no.1, had abused, used defamatory and foul language against the complainant compensation thereto demanded under notice, was also not paid. After receipt of documents such as DP note etc., complainant issued another notice dated 13/15th May, 2006, to opposite party, reiterating the demand of compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for use of foul and defamatory language by all the opposite parties. Thereafter, opposite party got issued notices to the complainant from State Legal Services Authority, UT Chandigarh, without supplying any copy of the petition. So, act of opposite parties claimed in this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, amounts to deficiency in service for their own failure to supply statement of loan account, showing application of interest on reducing balance each month, as per DP note. He sought compensation of Rs.1 lac for harassment due to unfair trade practice and Rs.3,3,50,000/0 for use of defamatory and foul language alongwith litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-.

2- Opposite parties in joint reply, have claimed that complainant has not come to the Fora with clean hands, he can not be permitted to take benefit of his own wrong wrongs, so complaint deserves dismissal. They admitted obtaining loan from them by the complainant and execution of the documents as alleged. But denied rest of his allegations to be incorrect. It is averred that no 48 blank cheques were given by the complainant. Rather, cheques were for a sum of Rs.4890/- each. The loan installments paid were duly credited to his account. All documents demanded, were made available. Principal amount and the interest paid by the complainant, has been given in Annexure-C1. Receipt of any notice from the complainant is denied. No harassment was caused to the complainant by any of the opposite parties, so not entitled for any compensation and damages.

3- Both parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.

4- As per admission of the complainant, contained in para no.9 of the complaint, all documents pertaining to the loan, as mentioned therein, stand received by him. He had demanded from opposite party and received DP note dated 21.6.2005, copy of personal loan application form, copy of agreement and guarantee, statement of account from June, 2005 to March, 2006, statement of Collection-Past Due Inquiry, giving details of interest and principal amount, repayment schedule of loan statement.

5- In this backdrop, we enquired from the complainant what else, as demanded and not supplied by the opposite party, may be specified. Ld. counsel for complainant then pointed that opposite party was guilty in not adjusting installments received from him against the principal and acted contrary to agreements, by adjusting installments against interest. However, we may say that parties in this case would be bound by terms and conditions of the agreement Ex.C8 and the Schedule-I, appended therewith. Vide that schedule, loan of Rs,2,91,500/- was agreed to be repaid by the complainant in 48 equal monthly installments of Rs.8490/- with 17.50% interest p.a.. It means that monthly installment was calculated by opposite party no.1, including principal and the amount of interest payable thereon. It was thereafter that amount of monthly instalment, was arrived at, which complainant agreed to pay in 48 monthly installments. Out of it, he has only paid few installments, which have been credited by opposite party to his account, as appears from Collection-Past Due Inquiry Ex.C11. Complainant was not able to show us anything from this agreement Ex.C8 that installments were required to be adjusted firstly against principal and thereafter against the amount of interest. Had it been so, he would not have agreed to terms and conditions of agreement Ex.C8 and schedule appended therewith. Therefore, we find no merit in contention of the complainant that installment was first required to be adjusted against principal amount.

6- The documents as sought by the complainant were made available to him, before filing the complaint by him in the Fora. Rather himself after paying few installments, stopped making further payments of the installments and elected to file the present compliant. We, in these circumstances, find no merit in the complaint, as there is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and therefore, the same is dismissed. Parties are left to bear own costs. Copy of order be made available to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to record room.



Announced on 17.3.2009 T.N. Vaidya, President.