C.C.No.84/2008

R. Sathyadas

5/172, Sheejalayam

Pulimparamba

Nemmara

Palakkad. - Complainant

(Party in person)

V/s

The Manager

M/s. G E Money

18/3680, Nirmal Chambers

Chandra Nagar (P.O)

Palakkad. - Opposite Party

O R D E R

By Smt. H. Seena, President


The case of the complainant is as follows.
The complainant has taken a personal loan from the Opposite party institution. He is making regular payments towards the loan amount. Opposite party has agreed to renew the loan amount and refix the interest rate within a period of six months. When no steps was taken by the Opposite party for the same, the complainant contacted the Opposite party. Opposite party assured the complainant that the loan will be renewed in the 12th month. The Opposite party has not taken any steps so far for renewal. Further the opposite party has informed that renewal of loan and refixation of interest has been stopped and all the customers has to pay the same EMI till the closure of the transaction. Due to this act of the Opposite party, complainant is forced to pay huge interest and hence the complaint. Complainant prays Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service on the side of the Opposite party.

Opposite party was set exparte.


Evidence adduced consists of the affidavit and Ext A1 marked on the side of the complainant.

- 2 -

Issues for consideration are

1. whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so, what is the reliefs and cost?
   

Points 1 and 2
As per Exhibit A1 which contains details regarding the repayment of loan, it can be seen that the loan amount of Rs.41,798/- has to be repaid in 30 instalments with an EMI of Rs.2,782/-.


Complainant is aggrieved by the fact that the Opposite party has not satisfied the assurance regarding refixation of interest and renewal of loan amount. Other than what is stated in the affidavit, complainant has not adduced any documentary evidence in support of this aspect. Since the Opposite party has not appeared before the Forum even after receipt of notice, the evidence tendered by the complainant stands unchallenged.


In view of the above circumstances we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the side of the Opposite Party.


In the result, complaint allowed. Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the whole amount shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.


Pronounced in the open court on this the 18th day of March 2009.

III ADDL,DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

No.8,Sahakara Bhavan,Cunningham Road,Bangalore-560 052.

consumer case(CC) No. CC/2413/2008

Sri. R. Balaji.
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.

GE-Money Financial Services Ltd.
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
1. Dr. Subhashini
2. H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA
3. N. SRIVATHSA KEDILAYA


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Sri. R. Balaji.


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. GE-Money Financial Services Ltd.


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

ORDER


1. (a) This Complaint is filed on 10/11/2008 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complaint, in brief is as hereunder. The Opposite Party contacted the Complainant over telephone in respect of an offer of personal loan and also an offer of a Credit-Card with Insurance benefit. After lot of deliberations, the Complainant accepted that offer. The executive of the Opposite Party obtained the signatures of the Complainant on the necessary forms and took the photographs and I.D. proofs. Subsequently, a Credit- Card was provided bearing No.4211892016452523.

A direction is also given by the Opposite Party to make use of that Credit-Card within three months from the date of issue. Accordingly for buying a Cycling Exercise Machine, the Complainant utilized that Card in the end of the month of December 2007. The Opposite Party did not send any Bill to the Complainant. In February 2008, they sent a letter dt.08/02/2008 through Courier. In that letter, it was directed to handover a cheque in the name of the Opposite Party for a minimum amount of Rs.4,799/- with the person carrying that Courier. Accordingly, the Complainant handed over a cheque bearing No.194255 drawn on ING Vysya Bank found in the High Court of Karnataka Extension Counter, for a sum of Rs.4,799/- which is made payable to the Opposite Party. After lapse of two hours, one agent of the Opposite Party approached the Complainant for collecting a sum of Rs.5,000/-.

The Complainant showed that letter dt.08.02.2008. After going through that letter the 2nd agent expressed that the genuine of that letter is under cloud and informed the Complainant to get it confirmed. However that 2nd agent did not bother to verify and contact this Complainant. Later on, the Complainant was informed that the said Courier Person unauthorizedly had collected that cheque. On coming to know of the same, the Complainant immediately issued stop payment letter to his Banker. The Banker deducted a sum of Rs.100/- in that regard from the Account of the Complainant. In the evening, the local collection agent of the Opposite Party visited the Complainant and collected another cheque from the Complainant for Rs.5,000/- by issuing a receipt.

(b) The Opposite Party instead of properly dispatching the monthly Bills, had allowed the period to lapse and unauthorizedly imposed late payment charges and excess withdrawal charges without any authority and deducted those amounts from the Credit-Card Account beyond the limit permitted by them. The Opposite Party by sending collection agents totally confused the Complainant and the Opposite Party is guilty of Unfair Trade Practice.

(c) That resulted in a legal notice. The Complainant had to issue a legal notice dt.18/02/2008 on 20/02/2008 to the Opposite Party addressing his grievance and seeking redressal. However, the Opposite Party did not bother. On account of the above commissions and omissions of the Opposite Party, the Complainant has been put to sufferance and loss. Hence, this Complaint is necessitated to direct the Opposite Party-Company to compensate the Complainant in a sum of Rs.20,000/- for the alleged deficiency of service which resulted in agony, loss and sufferance to the Complainant, with interest at 18% p.a. and also to direct to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the Complainant by way of cost of the litigation and further to grant such other reliefs deemed fit in favour of the Complainant.

(d) Along with the Complaint, the Complainant has made available xerox copies of some documents.


2. The Opposite Party have entered appearance through Counsel and produced their Version of the case on 22/01/2009. In brief, it is as hereunder. It is true, the Opposite Party-Company is engaged in the business of issuing Credit-Cards to the General Public. On verification of the required documents made available by the Customer, the Opposite Party take any decision which they found appropriate and accordingly, they extended the Credit-Card facility to the Complainant. The Complainant has duly accepted the Terms and Conditions of the same before making any payment. The Complainant ought to have verified the genuine of the demand and also the contents of that alleged letter dt.08/02/2008. It appears, the Complainant is an Advocate by Profession. He did not verify that letter said to have been made available by a Courier man to him which did not contain the signature of the concerned, nor any authorization to collect the money from the Complainant. Now for his lapses, the Complainant cannot blame the Opposite Party. The said document had no endorsement whatsoever by the Opposite Party and the Complainant has made any payment if at all to that unauthorized person, at his own risk. Wherefore, that very case of the Complainant has remained under cloud. It is false to contend that the Complainant was prompt in making payments. There was no unauthorized imposition of late payment charges by the Opposite Party.

The Complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. The Opposite Party has not received any notice from the Complainant. Even if there was any notice, the Opposite Party was not bound to reply that notice. Absolutely, there is no deficiency of service by the Opposite Party as alleged by the Complainant. The Complainant is bound by the Terms and Conditions touching that Credit-Card and now to get himself absolved from that liability, the Opposite Party has taken recourse to such a contention that he had issued a cheque for Rs.4,799/- and handed over the same to that Courier man. Hence, this very Complaint has to be dismissed with the cost of the Opposite Party.



3. In the light of the contentions of the parties since a dispute arose, the parties were called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. Accordingly, the Complainant had produced his affidavit on 22/01/2009 and one Ashtosh Sharma said to be a Senior Manger and the Authorized Signatory of the Opposite Party has sworn to an affidavit which is made available in evidence on 12/02/2009. At the end, this Forum heard on merits.



4. In the circumstances, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision in this Proceeding and they are; (i) Whether the Complainant has established that the Opposite Party remained deficient in rendering services to him in respect of the Credit-Card transaction referred to in this Complaint ? (ii) Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief in his favour and against the Opposite Party in this proceeding ? (iii) What Order? 5. Our Findings to these points are as hereunder:

i) No
ii) No
iii) As per the operative portion of the Order here- below. 6. We shall strengthen our findings on the following: R E A S O N S

POINT NO.1 & 2(a):- At the very outset, it has to be observed that the Complainant herein is not a layman. On the other hand, he is a Lawyer by Profession. Though it is contended by the Complainant that he was persuaded to avail the Credit-Card facility in question by the Opposite Party-Company, it is hard to believe that he availed that facility involuntarily. If really he had no intention to go for the same, certainly there could not have been any impediment for him to decline that offer.

(b) Admittedly, after availing that Credit-Card facility touching the Credit-Card referred to in the Complaint, the Complainant has not chosen to make use of the same for a period of 3 months and that since he was informed that the Card has to be made use of within 3 months from the date of issue of the Card, he availed the benefit of that Card by using the same in the fag-end of the month of December 2007 to buy one Cycling Exercise Machine.

(c) Now the contention of the Complainant is that, he received a letter from the Opposite Party through a Courier Person and as per the said letter, he had handed over a Cheque of Rs.4,799/- with that Courier Person. According to the Complainant, the copy of that letter is appended to the Complainant. Significantly, we do not find any date as such in that letter. More than that, the said letter does not contain the signature of anybody. Nodoubt, we find a recital in the said letter that no signature is required as it was a Computer Generator letter. That apart, nowhere in that letter it is stated that it is addressed to the Complainant. Ofcourse, we find is a request in the said letter to handover the minimum amount payable in a sum of Rs.4,799/- with that Courier Person who is carrying that letter. Significantly, that letter does not reveal the Credit-Card Account Number of the Complainant. Not even a mention is made in that letter that the said amount pertained to such and such Credit-Card. Further, it is not as if the said Courier Person who carried that letter is an Employee of the Opposite Party-Company. On the other hand, as revealed and admitted by the Complainant himself, the said letter came to him through First Flight Courier Company. Therefore the question is, can a prudent Customer can simply handover a cheque to that Courier Person in such a situation?. It is not the case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party-Company used to collect money from him in that way previously and on the other hand, in the course of arguments, it is submitted by the Complainant that it was the first occasion that he had so parted with that much of amount through a cheque by handing over that cheque to a Courier Person. As already stated, the Complainant is not a layman. On the other hand, he is a lawyer by Profession.


Under normal circumstances, before making any such payment even through cheque though not in cash, the Complainant as a Card Holder would have certainly verified himself by contacting the Opposite Party either through SMS or through other Mails. That apart, absolutely there is no proof that the Complainant had so handed over the cheque to that Courier Person. It is not as if it is the case of the Complainant that the said Courier Person is his friend or a person known to him. Whenever such a Negotiable Instrument is handed over, certainly an acknowledgment in that regard for having received the same is expected to be obtained. But in this case, it is not the case of the Complainant that there was an acknowledgment in that regard. Moreover, it is not the case of the Complainant that the said cheque amount has been debited from any of his Accounts. On the other hand, it is the contention of the Opposite Party that there was no such authorization at all by them to collect any amount from the Complainant and that it was an unauthorized collection. Moreover, there is no proof on record by way of evidence to opine that the cheque so handed over had reached the Opposite Party-Company. When that is the position, can the Complainant be justified in finding fault with the Opposite Party as far as that part of the transaction is concerned? Certainly not.



(d) Further, it is not the case of the Complainant that he has paid the amount pertaining to that Credit-Card payable by him to the Opposite Party-Company regarding the purchase of that Cycling Exercise Machine either in the month of January 2008 or subsequently. On the other hand, he admits that he had to issue another cheque to the Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.5,000/- in furtherance and as per the demand of the Opposite Party regarding the arrears touching that Credit-Card. This is very much admitted by the Opposite Party. Necessarily, that amount includes the interest and late payment charges since the Complainant did not make the payment due within the stipulated period. Now, the Complainant wants to impress upon this Forum that on account of the above development, he had to suffer mentally and financially. If really that agony and sufferance is attributable to the Opposite Party-Company, there would have been some force in that contention of the Complainant. But here it is not so. For his own commissions and omissions, the Complainant cannot blame the Opposite Party. Had he paid the amount due within the permissible period, the alleged problem would not have cropped-up at all.


(e) The Complainant further contends that there was no response by the Opposite Party to his notice dt.18/02/2008 and that was gained importance here. Ofcourse, the Complainant has made available a copy of that notice dt.18/02/2008 in evidence. Nodoubt, the Opposite Party-Company have contended that they did not receive that notice at all. Ofcourse, the Complainant has not produced the Postal Acknowledgment of the Opposite Party-Company touching that notice but, he has made attempts to secure the same from the concerned Post Office as revealed in the evidence. Even if it is held that there was service of that notice on the Opposite Party-Company, just because the Complainant has caused a notice to the Opposite Party-Company, there is no obligation for the Opposite Party-Company to cause a reply. If the notice warrants a reply, then in that event, the non-response may gain relevance. But here it is not so. We have gone through the contents of that notice. It refers to the above transaction which according to him, has resulted in agony and sufferance on account of the confusion created. However, in the light of our above observations, certainly there could not have been any confusion and the alleged confusion or harassment recited in the said notice is a figment of imagination of the Complainant himself and nothing else.


(f) Wherefore, in the circumstances, there is no evidence on record to opine that the Opposite Party remained deficient in rendering services to the Complainant as alleged by him. Inspite of the same, the Complainant has chosen to Claim a compensation of Rs.20,000/- from the Opposite Party-Company and another sum of Rs.3,000/- by way of cost of the proceeding. This is really unfortunate. Accordingly, these points are answered against the Complainant.


7. POINT NO.3:- In the result, we proceed to pass the following:


O R D E R


Since the alleged deficiency of service is not established by the Complainant against the Opposite Party-Company, this Complaint stands dismissed. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Opposite Party–Company shall bear themselves the costs incurred by them in the proceeding.

Pleas send me balance statement
Rspt 1627
I am very tired pleas close my account my work shop closed
Or balance 50% discount
Urgent replay
Or i am going to complainting collectore ,police,
My email
Vishnue09@gmail.com

Appeal case No.308/2009

Date of institution:1.6.2009

Date of decision :16.11.2009

Rupinder Pal Singh S/o Sh.Parmatam Singh, resident of H.No.1218, Sector-33-C, Chandigarh ---Appellant

V E R S U S

Maruti Countrywide Auto Financial Services Ltd. C/o GE Money Financial Services Ltd. through its authorized representative, SCO No.72-73, First floor, Sector-8-C, Chandigarh. -----Respondent



Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against

order dated 19.5.2009 passed by Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum-II, U.T.Chandigarh.



Argued by: Sh.Baljeet Singh , advocate for the appellant.

Sh.A.S.Parmar, advocate for the respondent.



BEFORE : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President

Maj.Gen. S.P.Kapoor (retd), Member

Mrs. Neena Sandhu,Member



JUDGMENT

16.11.2009



Justice Pritam Pal, President

1. This appeal by complainant Rupinderpal Singh is directed against the order dated 19.5.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, U.T.Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No.1387 of 2008 was dismissed.

The parties in this judgment hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Forum.

2.. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Ravinder Mohan Passi S/o Sh.Baldev Krishan Passi, resident of H.No.1019, Sector-23-B, Chandigarh approached the complainant through a car dealer for selling his Maruti Car bearing Registration No.CH-03-M-7953. The car was free from all sorts of encumbrances as in the ‘No Objection Certificate’ dated 15.3.2008 issued by OP it was stated that OP got no objection in removing the lien marked by the Registering Authority . The complainant purchased the said Maruti Car from Sh.Ravinder Mohan Passi and got necessary documentation for the transfer of the said vehicle in his name and submitted the same before the registering authority. However, the registering authority refused to transfer the vehicle on the plea that OP had given instructions on 28.3.2008 for not removing its lien. It was alleged that when the full and final payment had been made to OP in respect of the loan account then OP had no right to pass any such instructions to the registering authority. The said action of OP caused harassment and financial loss to the complainant as he could not make use of the car and had to hire transportation on account of ailment of his father. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum.

3. On the other hand, the case of OP before the District Forum was that the complainant had bought the car in question without taking its prior permission and he had no right to get the vehicle transferred in his name since the same was lying hypothecated with it. It is further stated that Sh.Ravinder Mohan Passi had defaulted in repayment of his monthly EMI with respect to his personal loan account held with it, therefore, on account of his default OP got the stay on the sale of the said vehicle with the competent court of Sh.S.K.Aggarwal, ADJ,Chandigarh vide order dated 23.3.2009 and as per the said order, Sh.Ravinder Mohan Passi could not sell his car to anyone. It was pleaded that the complainant had not taken any loan,so complaint filed by him was not maintainable. A prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The learned District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence brought on file and hearing the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the complaint by observing that OP was within its right to withhold the ‘No Objection Certificate’ on account of non-payment of the second(unsecured) loan. This is how feeling aggrieved against the said order, complainant has come up in this appeal.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully. The learned counsel for complainant has putforth his very short point of arguments wherein he submitted that all the dues outstanding against the car which he had purchased from Ravinder Mohan Passi had been cleared and as such ‘no objection certificate’ was also issued by OP . Sh.Ravinder Mohan Passi who was the loanee of OP had sold the car to the complainant vide a car sale agreement. These facts are also admitted by OP. The only objection of OP is that it had stopped the registering authority from transferring the vehicle on the ground that his loanee Ravinder Mohan Passi was a defaulter in another unsecured loan taken by him. Now this contention raised on behalf of OP is not tenable in the given facts and circumstances of this case, inasmuch-as it is an admitted fact that after clearance of the entire loan taken on the car by Sh.Ravinder Mohan Passi it had voluntarily given the ‘no objection certificate’ for transferring lien of the car but later on instruction given by it to the registering authority for not transferring of the ownership of the car was not based on sound footing. If at all Ravinder Mohan Passi was granted any unsecured loan by OP that has nothing to do with the loan taken on car which admittedly had already been repaid to it. Complainant is beneficiary qua OP,so, he has every right in the given facts and circumstances of this case to resist the hassle created by OP in smooth transferring of ownership of the vehicle. It is also to add here that the civil case for restraining the borrower from alienating the car pending before the court of Additional District Judge filed by OP against his loanee Ravinder Mohan Pass has already been dismissed vide order dated 24.8.2009. The certified copy of the order has also been placed on file by the learned counsel for the appellant.

6. Thus, in view of our foregoing discussion we find no hesitation to hold that the learned District Forum infact has not appreciated the facts of this case in right perspective. Therefore, this appeal is allowed and consequently the impugned order is set aside and complaint is allowed with following directions ;

i) that the complainant would be at liberty to get the ownership of the car transferred on the basis of ‘no objection certificate’ already delivered to him by Sh.Ravinder Mohan Passi.



ii) Complainant shall be entitled to lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment suffered by him at the hands of OP.

iii) Complainant is also held entitled to litigation costs which are assessed at Rs.2000/-.

The total amount of Rs.12,000/- shall be paid by OP within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which complainant shall also be entitled to penal interest @ 12% p.a.

Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.

COMPLAINT NO. 1738 OF 2009

Shashidhar Ramamurthy/

Swetha Shashidhar/ Mani Ramanurthy,

#249, Santrupti, 2nd A Main,

2nd Block, 4th Stage,

Vinayaka Layout, Nagarabhavi,

Bangalore – 560 072.

…. Complainant.

V/s

G.E.Money Housing Finance,

Prime Business Center,

No.4, Sri Krishna Temple Road,

Indiranagar, Bangalore – 38.

…. Opposite Party

-: ORDER:-
This complaint is for a direction to the Opposite Party to refund Rs.39,426-29 paise collected in excess towards pre-closure charges.

2. The case of the complainant is as under:-

He had availed home loan of Rs.11,25,000/- under loan account No.421, Top-up loan of Rs.10,50,000/- under loan account No.576 and another Top-up loan of Rs.8,00,000/- under loan account No.1843, in all Rs.21,75,000/- from the Opposite Parties. The rate of interest was steeply increased from time to time by the Opposite Party and had almost reached a stage that the entire EMI paid was only the interest component. He approached the Opposite Party for reduction in the interest, but the same was turned down. Thereupon he requested the Opposite Party for foreclosure with the intention of switching over to another home loan financier offering the loan at a lower rate of interest. The Opposite Party sent the letter dated 21/10/2008 mentioning the pre-closure charges as 2% on the outstanding principal for all the three loans. However, the complainant was not in a position to utilize the offer made by the Opposite Party as he could not find a Financier within the stipulated time which was to expire on 22/11/2008. The complainant also received letter dated 05/11/2008 confirming the rate of pre-closure charges as 2% of the outstanding principal in-respect of first two loans. After finding another Financier, the complainant obtained fresh letter of foreclosure dated 06/03/2009 wherein it was mentioned that the foreclosure charges was 2% for first loan and 4% for the other two loans. This discrepancy was brought to the notice of the Opposite Party. However, as generally followed in all cases wherein the claim for any refund was to be made after making full payment demanded and in order to meet the validity time, all the payments demanded were made under protest with intention to claim refund later. Hence, the complaint.



3. In the version, the contention of the Opposite Party is as under:-

The complainant is not a Consumer and therefore the complaint is not maintainable. The Opposite Party is a non banking financial company engaged in the business of lending loans to general public. The loans are sanctioned upon receiving applications and upon scrutinizing the applications with certain criteria and if the applicant accepts the terms and conditions of the Company. On the application filed by the complainant and on verification of the same loan of Rs.11,25,000/- was sanctioned on 14/08/2005 and the same was repayable in 240 EMI’s of Rs.9,063/- each inclusive of interest at 13.5% Per Annum. The complainant approached again for Top-up loan for Rs.10,50,000/- and the same was sanctioned on 07/11/2005, it was repayable in 180 EMI’s of Rs.9,734/- each inclusive of interest at 13.89%. Again the complainant approached for Top-up loan of Rs.8,000/- and the same was sanctioned on 07/03/2007. The loan was repayable in 192 EMI’s of Rs.8,745/- each. The complainant is aware that all the three loans are having separate loan account number running individually with individual rate of interest. By the ‘e’ mail dated 23/04/2009 they had clarified the procedure of processing fee pertaining to all the three loan accounts, but the complainant intentionally wants to harass the Opposite Party knowing well that the foreclosure charges and processing fee will be clearly indicated in the loan agreement and he will be given 15 days grace period to go through the agreement papers and if he can opt the same, the loan will be sanctioned. As per Clause – 2.7 in schedule-1 of the agreement, the borrower is liable to pay pre payment charges at 5% if the full pre payment is made within first 12 months. The borrower is liable to pay pre-payment charges at 3.5% if the payment is made after 12 months but before 36 months. Pre-payment made after 36 months, is subject to discretion of GE Money Housing Finance with regard to pre-payment charges. The schedule clearly denotes how the charges are levied for pre-payment charges. The complaint is filed after three years with false and frivolous contentions disclosing no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. Even assuming for a moment that there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party, the complainant ought to have approached this Forum either in the year 2005 or in the year 2007 itself. The complainant has not explained the reason for delay in filing the complaint. Therefore, the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. On these grounds, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. In support of the respective contentions, both parties have filed affidavits and have produced copies of documents. Both the parties have filed written arguments. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the version filed by the Opposite Party



5. The points for consideration are:-



1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party?



2. Whether the complainant entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the complaint?



6. Our findings are:-

Point No(1) : In the Affirmative



Point No(2) : As per final order

For the following:-
-:REASONS:-

7. The fact that the complainant had availed three loans from the Opposite Party under different loan account numbers and pre-closed the same is not disputed. The complainant has not disclosed the date on which each loan was availed. However, the Opposite Party has stated that the first loan under loan account No.421 was availed on 07/09/2005, the second loan under loan account No.576 was availed on 07/11/2005 and the third loan under loan account No.1843 was availed on 07/03/2007. Both the parties have also not disclosed the date on which the loans were pre-closed. However, in the written arguments, the Opposite Party has disclosed that all the three loans were pre-closed in March-2009. From the documents placed on record by the complainant it is also seen that subsequent to the pre-closure of the loans, the Opposite Party refunded Rs.7,021/- through cheque dated 16/04/2009 and another sum of Rs.431/- through cheque of the same date. This fact is also not disclosed in the complaint or in the version. The dispute between the parties is with regard to the pre-closure charges collected by the Opposite Party when the complainant pre-closed all the three loans. In respect of the pre-closure charges levied, the Opposite Party relies-upon the terms and conditions contained in schedule-1 of the loan agreement, a copy of which is produced as annexure-H along with the version. Clause-11 of schedule-1 which form part of the agreement deals with pre payment charges and it reads as under:-

“The borrower shall pay the following part/full pre-payment charges:

Made within first 12 months of loan Subject to

discretion of GEMHF - 5%

Made after 12 months but before 36 months - 3.5%

Made after 36 months - 2%”.

Therefore as per Clause-11, schedule-1 of the agreement, a borrower is liable to pay pre-payment charges of 5% if the prepayment is made within first 12 months from the date of availing the loan. However, it is the discretion of the Opposite Party to charge any amount less than 5%. This discretion with regard to charging pre-payment charges is only with regard to the pre-payment made within first 12 months of the loan and not for the other pre-payments made after the expiry of 12 months from the date of loan. In case the pre-payment is made after 12 months but before 36 months, the pre-payment charges are to be paid at 3.5% and if the payment is made after 36 months, the pre-payment charges are payable only at 2%.

8. Admittedly, the complainant availed the first loan under loan account No.421 on 07/09/2005 and pre-closed the loan in March-2009. By that time, he had made payment of 42 EMI’s and therefore the pre-closure was after 36 months from the date of loan. As such the Opposite Party is entitled to levy pre-payment charges only at 2% on the outstanding principal so far as the first loan is concerned.

The complainant availed the second loan on 07/11/2005 and pre-closed the same in March-2009. Therefore till March he had made payment of 40 EMI’s and as such the loan account was closed 36 months after the date of the loan. As such the Opposite Party is entitled to collect pre-payment charges only at 2% on the outstanding principal amount so far as the second loan is concerned.

The complainant availed the 3rd loan on 07/03/2007 and pre-closed that loan also in March-2009. Therefore, till then he had made payment of 24 EMI’s and as such the pre-payment was made after 12 months and before 36 months from the date of loan and therefore the Opposite Party is entitled to charge pre payment charges at 3.5% on the outstanding principal amount. This is in accordance with the pre-payment charges provided in Clause-11 of schedule-1 of the agreement which is signed by both the parties.

9. In the ‘e’ mail dated: 23/04/2009 the Opposite Party has informed the complainant that the applicable foreclosure charges on loan account No.421 (1st loan) is at the rate of 2%, and on the loan account Nos.576 & 1843 (2nd & 3rd loan) is 4% along with applicable service tax. This information conveyed by the Opposite Party in the ‘e’ mail dated 23/04/2009 makes it clear that the Opposite Party has charged foreclosure charges at 2% on the first loan and 4% on the 2nd & 3rd loans. So far as collecting foreclosure charges at 2% on the first loan is concerned, the same is in accordance with the rates disclosed in Clause-11 of schedule-1 of the agreement. But so far as the 4% foreclosure charges with regard to 2nd and 3rd loans is concerned, the same is in excess of the rates mentioned in Clause-11 of Schedule-1 to the agreement. As stated earlier, the second loan under loan account No.576 was pre-closed 40 months after the date of the loan and therefore the Opposite Party is entitled to collect foreclosure charges only at 2% and not at 4% as has been done. Even in respect of the 3rd loan, the Opposite Party is entitled to collect foreclosure charges at 3.5% and not at 4%. In Clause-11 of the first schedule, it is provided that in case the payment is made after 12 months and before 36 months, the pre-closure charges will payable at 3.5% on the outstanding principal amount. In the complaint as well as in the version the parties have not disclosed the outstanding principal amount under each loan account as on the date of foreclosure. However, along with the complaint the complainant has filed statement disclosing the outstanding principal amount as on the date of foreclosure, the amount collected by the Opposite Party towards foreclosure charges and the amount actually due and payable on each loan account towards foreclosure charges.

10. In respect of the first loan under loan account No.421, the principal outstanding is shown as Rs.10,76,924-28 Paisa, pre-payment or foreclosure charges at 2% on the said amount comes to Rs.21,538-49 Paisa. Including service tax at 10% and Cess on service tax at 3%, the total amount payable towards foreclosure charges comes to Rs.23,756-96 Paisa. Whereas the Opposite Party has collected Rs.24,231-00 and thus it has collected Rs.474-76 Paisa in excess.

In respect of the second loan under loan account No.576, the outstanding principal as on the date of foreclosure is shown as Rs.9,69,176-15 Paisa. The Opposite Party has collected foreclosure charges at 4% on the said amount. As stated earlier, the Opposite Party is entitled to collect foreclosure charges only at 2% and not at 4%. The foreclosure charges calculated at 2% on Rs. 9,69,176-15 Paisa comes to Rs.19,383-52 Paisa. Including service tax and Cess, the total amount payable towards foreclosure charges comes to Rs.21,380-00, whereas the Opposite Party has collected Rs.43,560-00 and thereby it has collected excess amount of Rs.22,179-83.

In respect of 3rd loan under loan account No.1843, the outstanding principal amount is shown as Rs.7,80,505-42 Paisa. In respect of this loan also the Opposite Party has collected foreclosure charges at 4%. As stated earlier, the Opposite Party is entitled to collect foreclosure charges at 3.5% only. The complainant also cannot claim that he is liable to pay foreclosure charges in respect of 3rd loan at 2%. Calculating at 4% the Opposite Party has charged Rs.31,220-10 Paisa towards foreclosure charges, Rs.3,122-00 towards service tax and Rs.93.66 Paisa towards Cess and thus arrived at Rs.34,435-00 towards pre-closure charges payable on 3rd loan. But the foreclosure charges at 3.5% on the outstanding principal comes to Rs.27,317-58 Paisa. Service tax at 10% comes to Rs.2,731-75 Paisa and Cess at 3% on service tax comes to Rs.81.95 Paisa. Thus, total amount payable towards pre-closure charges in respect of 3rd loan works out to Rs.30,131-28 Paisa. The Opposite Party has collected Rs.34,435-77 Paisa towards foreclosure charges and therefore it has collected Rs.4,304-49 Paisa in excess of the amount actually due.

11. Thus, the excess amount collected by the Opposite Party is Rs.474-76 Paisa in respect of the first loan, Rs.22,179-83 Paisa in respect of the second loan and Rs.4,304-49 Paisa in respect of the 3rd loan, in all Rs.26,959-08 Paisa. The complainant has received refund of Rs.7,452/- under two cheques both dated 16/04/2009. If this amount is deducted in the amount of Rs.26,959-08, the balance amount required to be refunded by the Opposite Party comes to Rs.19,507/-.

12. The act of the Opposite Party in collecting foreclosure charges at the rates more than what is provided in the agreement clearly amounts to deficiency in service and therefore we hold that the Opposite Party is liable to refund Rs.19,507/- to the complainant. In view of what is stated above, the complainant is not entitled to claim refund of Rs.39,426/- as claimed in the complaint. In the result, we pass the following:-

-:ORDER:-
1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs.19,507/- to the complainant together with interest at 12% Per Annum from April-2009 till the date of payment and also to pay costs of Rs.2,000/-.
3. Compliance of this order shall be made within eight weeks from the date of communication.
4. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
5. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 09th Day of NOVEMBER 2009.

C.C.NO.298/2009

Friday, the 20th day of November, 2009

Mr.T. Madhusudanan,

172/5, Alagannan Street,

K.K. Pudur, Saibaba Colony,

Coimbatore – 641 038. --- Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s. G.E.Money Financial Services Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager,

36/6&7, Ashirvdh Building,

D.B. Road, R.S. Puram,

Coimbatore – 641 002.

2. M/s. G.E. Money Financial Services Ltd.,

Rep. by its Manager,

Unit No. 401 & 402,

4th Floor, Agarwal Millennium Tower,

E-1,2,3, Netaji Subhash Place,

Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. --- Opposite Parties



This case coming on for final hearing before us today in the presence of Mr.K.A. Jaleel Mon Advocate for complainant and the opposite parties remained absent and set exparte and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:

ORDER

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties claiming amount of Rs.62804 and compensation of Rs.1 lakh for the illegal threat caused to him together with damages for mental agony and to pay towards cost of the proceedings.

The averments in the complaint are as follows:

1. The complainant is a customer of opposite party obtained a loan of Rs.30,490 on 7.3.06 as per Loan account No..RSCF00010593. The EMI being 2052 payable in 25 monthly instalments. The first opposite party is the branch at Coimbatore and the 2nd opposite party is the head office at Delhi. The complainant settled entire amount on 11.7.07 by paying 19,000 as full and final settlement and pre-closed his account. Despite paying the entire full amount the opposite party is claiming Rs.43,804 as balance due. The opposite parties made several threatening calls to pay the alleged balance due amount. The complainant has sent legal notice on 15.7.08 though they have acknowledged the receipt of the same but there was no response from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

2. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A9 was marked and the opposite parties remained absent and set exparte.



1. Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service? If so what relief the complainant is entitled to?


ISSUE 1

3. The case of the complainant is that even after settling the entire loan amount the opposite parties without closing the complainant’s account further demanding extra amount which the complainant is not bound to pay. The complainant issued a legal notice though they acknowledged the receipt but there was no response from the opposite parties. The opposite parties neither appeared nor filed version before this Forum and in the absence of any contra evidence on the side of the opposite parties the case of the complainant is to be accepted. On perusal of documents viz. Ex.A5 dt.11.7.07, the complainant has paid 19,000 ie. 3000 as cash and 16,000 as DD for foreclosure and this was not disputed by the opposite parties. We are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

4. In the result, the complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.15,000 as compensation towards stress, mental agony which the complainant underwent due to the attitude of the opposite parties and to pay cost of Rs.1000/- within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Pronounced by us in Open Forum on this the 20th day of November, 2009.

Complainant:
Jayaram K.S.

No.75, Panduranga Nagar

II M Post

Bannerghatta Road

Bangalore-560 076
V/s
Opposite Party:
GE Money

Prime Business Centre, No.4

Binnamangala

Sri Krishna Temple Road

Indiranagar

Bangalore-560 038
O R D E R

SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:

The grievance of the complainant against the Op as alleged in this complaint is that he had availed mortgage loan of Rs.25.00 lakhs from the Op during February 2007. That he was regularly paying the installment without any delay. That he approached Op for an additional loan. The Op did not agree for sanction. The Op on his application for second loan informed him that they have stopped lending. Then he requested Op to waive in applicable charge but he did not get any reply hence he was forced to move the loan account maintained with Op in favour of ING Vysya Bank. That he received Rs.24,57,910/- out of the loan amount of Rs.25.00 lakhs by deducting Rs.42,090/- as processing charges. That he has paid total amount paid to him to the Op to clear the loan of Rs.30,85,473/-. But he was made to pay Rs.30,85,473/- and he had to pay Rs.50,562/- to ING Vysya Bank as processing fee and has thus prayed for a direction to the Op to refund Rs.1,06,943/- and the processing fee paid to ING Vysya Bank with compensation of Rs.25,000/-

OP has filed his version through an advocate in which OP by stating that the complaint is not maintainable has further stated that the complainant had availed several loans from many banks. OP further admitting granting of loan Rs.25.00 lakhs to the complainant has produced a copy of the loan application filed by the complainant and further narrating that loan has been sanctioned to the complainant under agreement dated 09/01/2007 and stated that complainant had agreed to pay foreclosure. That the complainant himself approached them for foreclosure of the loan and as per the loan agreement foreclosure amount was calculated. As on 02/01/2009 the complainant was outstanding Rs.23,91,914=60 and foreclosure charges were calculated as Rs.1,06,943.48. The complainant thereafter agreed to pay the foreclosure amount and is paid vide a receipt issued to the complainant. That the complainant opted voluntarily to transfer his loan account to ING Vysya bank. As per article 5 of the agreement entered into between the parties the complainant he was required to pay pre-closer charges. Accordingly the complainant paid pre-closure charges and thus has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and an authorized signatory of the Op namely B.Venkatesh have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. Complainant has produced Xerox copy of receipt issued by the Op when the complainant’s account was pre-closed by the complainant. OP has produced a copy of loan application filed by the complainant, copy of the agreement and a copy of document containing conditions of loan and current pre-payment charges. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

On consideration of the materials placed before us by the parties following points for determination arise.



1. Whether the complainant proves that the OP has caused deficiency in his service by charging pre-closure charges.

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1 : In the negative

Point No.2: To see the final order.

REASONS:

Answer on point No.1 : We find no controversy between the parties with regard to certain facts like Op sanctioning loan of Rs.25.00 lakhs its disbursement and repayment through EMI’s with interest as agreed between the parties. The complainant it is stated had after securing loan of Rs.25.00 lakhs from the Op applied for additional loan. But the Op turned down the request of the complainant to provide second loan. Thereafter, it is found that the complainant approached ING Vysya Bank for financial assistance and got the loan account he had with the OP made over to ING Vysya Bank. It is at that stage when the complainant opted for making over the loan to ING Vysya Bank, the Op pressed into service, the condition of loan, repayment and the foreclosure charges payable by the complainant was insisted than the complainant got his account closed by paying pre-closure charges.



It is the grievance of the complainant that when he got the loan account maintained with Op made over to the ING Vysya Bank, Op asked him to pay foreclosure charges and on transfer of that loan account op has recovered a some of Rs.1,06,943.48 and complainant aggrieved by the recovery of this foreclosure charges has come up with this complaint. The OP has invited our attention to condition No.5.4 of the loan agreement and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant had agreed to pay pre-closure charges and that the complainant when voluntarily got his loan pre-paid has paid the pre-closure charges to the Op on 03/12/2008 and obtained the receipt.



On considering the conditions of loan as agreed between the parties, we find that the complainant had agreed to pay pre-closure charges in the event of his getting the loan amount re-paid earlier to the date fixed for re-payment. We are also finding a receipt copy produced by the complainant himself we find that the complainant voluntarily agreeing to pre-pay the loan amount has paid Rs.1,06,943.48 towards pre-closure charges. Therefore it is not the case of the complainant that he was not a party to the agreement and pre-closure charges is recovered from him by using force and applying fraudulent method adopted by the Op. Thus we find that the Op has acted in accordance with the conditions of the agreement and recovered pre-closure charges. In the absence of allegations of the complainant that pre-closure charges have been recovered from him by using of force, fraud and any other method contrary to law. The Op cannot be said to have caused deficiency in his service when the Op has acted as per the agreed terms and conditions and voluntarily got the loan account transferred and paid that charges cannot come with this complaint. Hence, we find no merits in the complaint, we therefore answer point No.1 in the negative and pass the following order.