DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2024.
Present : Sri Vinay Menon .V, President.
: Sri. Krishnankutty N .K, Member.
Date of filing:07.10.2022.
CC/185/2022
Ms. Hafsath M, - Complainant
D/o Mr. Mohamed Musthafa,
Kodunnottil House,
Kalladi College P.O,
Kumaramputhur,
Mannarkkad, Palakkad.
(By Adv.Viju K. Raphael)
Vs
1. M/s. TVS Credit Service Ltd, -Opposite Parties
Rep.by its Managing Director,
Jayalakshmi Estate No.29,
Haddows Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai, Tamilnadu-600 006.
2. Branch Manager,
M/s.TVS Credit Service Ltd.,
1st Floor, Leela Arcade,
Mathakoli Street, Sulthanpet,
Palakkad-678 001.
(By Adv.S.Sidharthan)
ORDER
By Sri. Krishnankutty N .K, Member.
1. Pleadings of the complainant.
The complainant availed a vehicle loan of Rs.3,37,000/- for the purchase of a used Maruthi Suzuki Swift Desire car worth Rs.3,67,000/- from the opposite party.
2. The allegations of the complainant are;
1) The complainant signed in some printed blank papers and also in some other blank papers as per the direction of the executives of the opposite parties. Since the complainant is having only 7th standard education, she could not read and comprehend the terms and conditions of the loan printed on these papers.
2) The opposite party failed to extend the moratorium and restructuring to the complainant as per the direction of the Reserve Bank of India. Hence the payments made for the subsequent months were adjusted towards the instalments pertaining to the moratorium period.
3) The opposite party seized the vehicle on 24.09.2022 forcefully.
4) The opposite charged interest at 19.275% p.a. and 36% for the delayed instalments
According to the complainant, all these amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and hence, approached this Commission seeking the following reliefs;
a) Regularising the account by giving restructuring benefit as per the direction of Reserve Bank of India.
b) Return the seized vehicle in the condition it was seized.
c) To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and pain suffered by the complainant.
d) Cost of litigation.
3. The complainant filed an interim application seeking direction to restrain the opposite parties from alienating the vehicle which was allowed by this Commission vide Order dated 10.10.2022.
4. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. They entered appearance and filed version. According to them, in spite of repeated directions, the complainant did not apply for activation of restructing plan and that is the reason for not providing the benefit of the scheme. Since there were defaults in the repayment, the opposite party approached Honourable District Court, Palakkad and the vehicle was seized by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Court. The interest rate charged is as per the RBI directives. Further, this Commission is not having jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as arbitration proceedings have already been started as per the provisions in the agreement executed by the complainant with the opposite party at the time of availing the loan.
5. Issues involved in this case are;
a) Whether the opposite parties denied the eligible restructuring facility to the complainant’s loan ?
b) Whether the opposite parties is in order in seizing the complainant’s vehicle ?
c) Whether the opposite parties charged exorbitant interest in the loan accounts of the complainant ?
d) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ?
e) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed ?
f) Reliefs as to cost and compensation.
As this Commission is having jurisdiction to examine the presence or absence of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in spite of any arbitration clause in the agreement, it was not included as an issue for consideration here.
6. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A3 as evidence. Ext.A1 is the loan account statement of the complainant with opposite parties. Ext.A2 (series) is the print out of SMS received by the complainant for payment of EMIs and Ext.A3 is the copy of the RC of the vehicle. The opposite party did not file proof affidavit or mark any documents as evidence. The complainant filed an IA No.138/2023 for directing the opposite parties to produce such documents. The opposite party failed to produce those documents. Hence, this Commission is forced to resort to adverse inference against opposite parties with respect to the fact that could be proved by production of the said documents.
7. Issue No.1
The opposite party did not file proof affidavit or mark any document. None of the evidence adduced by the complainant gives us any indication as to whether the opposite party had given any intimation to the complainant about the eligibility for restructing as per the Reserve Bank of India Circular dated 27.03.2020. Though opportunity was given by this Commission (vide Order in I.A.No.138/2023) to produce the relevant document in the matter, the opposite parties failed to submit the same. Hence, it is to be presumed that adequate opportunity was not given to the complainant for the same which amounts to deficiency in service.
8. Issue No.2
Though the opposite party did not file proof affidavit, the contention raised by the opposite party in their version is that the seizure of the vehicle was done as per law and as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement executed by the complainant. The opposite party neither marked any documents in support of these contentions nor produced the same as per the orders of this Commission. Hence, it is to be concluded that the opposite parties did not follow the legal procedure in seizing the vehicle. However, undisputedly, as the matter is under the consideration of District Court, this Commission is not in a position to reach any conclusion in the matter and hence, leave it to the decision of the concerned authority.
9. Issue No.3
Though the contention of the opposite parties is that the interest charged is as per the directions of the Reserve Bank of India, they failed to adduce any evidence in support of this in spite of the order of this Commission. Though the Non Banking Financial Companies are free to decide the rate of interest charged on the loan granted by them, it should be done in a transparent way by way of a Board approved policy in the matter. Hence, it is to be concluded that the opposite parties failed to convince the Commission as well as the complainant regarding the logic or reasoning about the interest charged on the loan, which is clearly a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. However, as the arbitration proceedings is in force, we leave the matter to the decision of Arbitration court.
10. Issue No.4, 5 & 6
As the deficiency in service is established as above in issue No.1, the complaint is allowed in part ordering the following reliefs;
1. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service and resultant mental agony.
2. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof till the date of payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 29th day of January, 2024.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon .V,
President.
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N .K,
Member.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: Loan account statement of the complainant with opposite parties.
Ext.A2: The print out of SMS received by the complainant for payment of EMIs.
Ext.A3: The copy of the RC of the vehicle.
Cost : 25,000/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
