ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Party (herein referred in short as O.P) alleging the deficiency in service in levying more interest than agreed, for return of the extra interest paid by him, for refund of Rs.1,00,000/- which he has paid in excess than what is due to the OP i.e., Rs.1,90,000/- and Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation for mental sufferance and time spent and Rs.10,000/- for the expenses he has incurred and for other reliefs as the Commission deems fit under the circumstance.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that;

The complainant approached the OP bank to purchase a Maruthi Swift car on 04.07.2017 under Prime Minister Mudra Yojana and OP sanctioned the said amount with a interest of 9.20% p.a., with a grace period of one month for starting the EMI and provided him 63 monthly equated installments. A loan account was opened under No.6888606170000034.  He was orally instructed not to pay the first installment and also he was not intimated as to from which date the installment is to be paid and what is the amount of each installment.  He was paying Rs.8,259/- per month on a guess work.  Though he was given grace period for paying the initial EMI, without his consent, the bank authorities have deducted 2 installments from his account. When the same was questioned, the manager of the OP informed him that besides giving loan they are not liable to provide all the details as and when required by the complainant.  They called the police and handed over him to the police on the ground that he has come to the bank to create nuisance. He informed the police that he has come there to seek the details of his loan account and the police directed the bank manager to provide him the documents.  

3.      Further he is liable to pay Rs.1,90,000/- as EMI as on date whereas OP has recovered Rs.2,90,000/- from his account, when the same was sought to be refunded specific information was not given and he was threatened of filing a criminal case. Even without his knowledge they seized the said the car and abstructed his employment.  Though he was ready to pay the entire amount in one go, OP has refused to receive the same and denied to give NOC.  Though he has given in writing the same it was not at all considered by the Ops.  Instead, they have demanded to pay abnormal amount and has created mental agony and have charged heavy interest.  When the same was questioned, they have informed him that as per the directions of the RBI, they have levied the interest.  They have not given the documents in that respect and that he has also filed application under RTI Act. Since there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in recovering more money from him, and levying more interest there is deficiency in service on the part of OP and hence prayed the Commission to allow the complaint.

4.      Upon the service of notice, OP appeared before the Commission and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable in law and facts. It is the OP and representatives have been put to sufferance, untold misery, harassment and constant threat from the complainant, when they approached the complainant to recover the legitimate dues in respect of the vehicle loan availed by the complainant, as the complainant failed to pay the installments.  Since it is a public fund, OP and the representatives have to recover the amount from the complainant who has received the benefits of purchasing the vehicle under the Prime Ministers Mudra Yojana, which provides affordable credit facility to business enterprises and transport operators for starting their own business to become self sufficient.  

5.      The complainant obtained the loan in order to do business of transport and hence he is not a consumer under the C.P. Act.

6.      It is admitted that they lent Rs.4,75,000/- to purchase Maruthi Tour S Vehicle to run it as a commercial cab/taxi and the loan sanction was communicated to the complainant on 4.11.2017. It was also agreed by the complainant to avail 63 installments including moratorium period with Rs.7,916/- per installments + interest at the rate of NCLR + 1.65% and the terms and conditions have been agreed by the complainant and has executed loan documents.   After purchasing the said vehicle, the same has been hypothecated to the bank.  In the event of failure to pay the installments, bank has every right to seize the said vehicle, sell the same and recover the amount due to it.  OP has also agreed to seize the vehicle in case of default and to take possession of the same without further notice.  They have acted in accordance with the guidelines of the RBI in respect of levying the interest.  Complainant himself has paid Rs.37,200/- by way of cash on 04.12.2017 in order to pay the EMIs.  They have charged interest as per the guidelines and inconformity with the said guidelines.  The rate agreed by the complainant for the said loan is 9.85% p.a., and not 9.20% as claimed.  The complainant’s loan account was running short of the amount to adjust the same towards EMI.  It was always over due and on the verge of being classified as NPA.  However the complainant paid some amount in order not to take action against the vehicle.  On 17.07.2019 the complainant along with three other persons spoke menacingly to the OP and to its officials and even threatened them for issuing the overdue notice.  Since the patrolling police were making rounds entered the bank premises and warned the complainant and his men not to create nuisance and cause any inconvenience to the public who had come to the bank.  As per the RBI guidelines the loan account of the complainant was classified as NPA in November 2019.  However since the complainant paid the amount and upgraded the same into standard category.

7.      It is further contended that they had to issue a legal notice on 22.02.2020 informing the complainant that his loan account is classified as NPA continuous to default in loan amount. They are entitled to take action to recover the amount by seizing the hypothecated vehicle. Inspite of it complainant did not pay the amount and thus the loan has become once again classified as NPA. Hence bank had to start recovery proceedings for the default committed.  The contention that the complainant he has paid Rs.2,90,000/- when the due amount as per his calculation is only Rs.1,90,000/- is misleading and fractually incorrect.  He has just multiplied the principle demanded by the period covered by number of installments.  The EMI includes the interest, the principal and the applicable charges month to month.  The sanction communication of the loan to the complainant has made clearly in this regard.  Even the documentation charge, stamp duty and the credit guarantee fund for micro units are also included under the loan amount.  The complainant has only attempted to mislead the Commission and has not been repaying the loan amount availed under Pradhana Mantri Mudra Yojana Scheme.

8.      Complainant has falsely stated that he has offered onetime payment of all the outstanding dues to the OP and OP refused to receive the same. At no point of time, the complainant has come forward to pay the outstanding in one go. In fact the officials of OP have been falling the complainant with an option to restructure his loan as per the RBI guidelines.  They wanted to accommodate the complainant by providing all the clarification required and explaining all the terms whenever he sought for it.  The complainant has been inconsistent and rude in his behaviors and has been extremely non co-operative when it comes to repayment of the loan.  Bank cannot function as per the whims and fancies of the complainant.  If the defaulting borrowers by complainant are allowed to approach the consumer commission making untenable clients instead of repaying the loan or even discussing the restructuring option than public financial institution like OP bank would find it impossible to discharge its function.  Complainant has failed to make out the deficiencies of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  OP cannot be held responsible for classifying the loan account of the complainant as NPA for not paying the installments. Denying all the allegations made in each and every para of the complaint prayed the forum to dismiss the complaint by imposing exemplary cost.

9.      In order to prove the case, both the parties filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

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

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

10.   Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1 AND 2 :               In the Negative

                                                        For the following.

REASONS

11.   POINT No.1:-

    Perused the complaint, version, affidavit evidence and the documents produced by respective parties.  It is not in dispute that the complainant availed the loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from the OP bank under Pradhana Mantri Mudra Yojana and agreed to pay interest at 9.85% per annum and executed the loan agreement, which is self-explanatory.  The loan is repayable in 60/63 monthly installments of Rs.7,916/- + interest starting from February 2018 and also to execute hypothecation agreement and hypothecate the vehicle purchased out of the loan obtained and to mention on the body of the vehicle that it is “financed by Union Bank of India”.  The terms and conditions also includes 2% penal interest on delay in repayment or servicing interest and installment or penalty or takeover of the loan etc.,  the account statement is also produced, wherein,  the transactions that has taken place has been mentioned.

                12.   From the documents produced it cannot be held that the OP has charged excess interest., since it is the case of the complainant that the loan was sanctioned for the interest of 9.20%, whereas the agreement filed and marked clearly shows that it is 9.85% p.a.   There is no proof produced by the complainant that he has paid Rs.2,90,000/- against Rs.1,00,000/-.

        13.   Further the OP has issued notice to the complainant, for the default committed by him and wanted to proceed against him by seizing the vehicle which has been hypothecated to the OP.  It is an act to be carried out by the OP in order to recover the amount due as the bank has sanctioned the amount which belongs to public. The mere issuing of notice and seizure of vehicle in order to recover the loan amount do not constitute deficiency in service or can be termed as unfair trade practice.  

14.   OP has contended that since the complainant became a defaulter issued notice to the complainant to update the loan transaction and failing which they would treat the loan as NPA.  At the first instance he paid an amount and got it regularized.  Whereas still he was defaulting in payment of the EMIs though issued a notice, again for the second time to update the loan account and to pay the defaulted amount on 17.07.2019.  complainant along with three other persons came to the branch office and took up quarrel with the branch office, for which they made a complaint.

15.   All these facts and circumstances are taken into consideration, complainant has not been regular in paying the balance loan amount and the EMIs regularly, for which OP has issued notice.  The same do not constitute deficiency in service.

16.   Hence in view of the same, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and transparency in official dealings and hence answer point No.1 and 2 in the negative and pass the following;

ORDER

1. Complaint is Dismissed.
2. In case complainant come forward and wants to pay the entire loan amount due including the overdue and present balance in one go, OP to accept the same by following rules and procedure and guidelines by RBI and issue necessary loan discharge certificate/NOC and discharge the vehicle from hypothecation and do all relevant acts in that respect.
3. Complainant to explain his desire of paying his loan/outstanding in one go in writing upon receiving such letter, OP to act within 15 days thereafter in receiving the amount.
4. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the same will be weeded out/destroyed.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 14^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021)

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Bank statement

Ex P2: Advocate notice issued by bank to me

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sri.Upma Joshi, Branch head

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: The copy of the loan application

Ex R2: Loan sanction letter executed by the complainant

Ex R3: Copy of Demand promissory note

Ex R4: Letter of continuity

Ex R5: Agreement in respect of the interest

Ex R6: Hypothecation agreement

Ex R7: Notice in respect of overdue amount

Ex R8: Letter written by the complainant

Ex R9: Letter dated 14.12.2020 by the Bank

Ex R10: Account statement extract.

MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT