| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA C.C. No. 754 of 08-12-2014 Decided on : 10-09-2015 Vikas Nagpal S/o Surinder Kumar Nagpal R/o # 824 Street No. 9, Patel Nagar, Malout, District Mukatsar now at H. No. 91, Barewal Road, Ludhiana. …... Complainant Versus Corporation Bank, Loan Department, Bank Street, Old Satta Bazar, Bathinda, through its Chief Manager/Branch Manager .......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum : Sh. M.P.Singh. Pahwa, President Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member Present : For the Complainant : Sh. Gaurav Vinocha counsel for complainant. For the opposite parties : Sh. R.P. Singh, counsel for opposite party. O R D E R M.P.Singh Pahwa, President This complaint has been filed by Vikas Nagpal, complainant under Section 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Corporation Bank (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite party'). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he has availed loan facility from opposite party to the tune of Rs. 3,26,000/- in the month of July, 2006. His loan account number is CMOB1/01/060007. The opposite party paid loan amount of Rs. 3,26,000/- to M/s Hira Automobiles Ltd., i.e. dealer from whom the car was purchased. The opposite party got signatures of complainant on various blank printed forms as per their wishes by using their dominating position as a creditor. The complainant has signed the same under compulsion as he was in need of money for purchasing of car. The opposite party was not ready to provide loan until and unless the complainant signs those documents. It is pleaded that tenure of the loan was seven years. The loan amount including interest was to be paid in 84 fixed EMIs of Rs. 5320/- each. The complainant has paid all the 84 EMIs of loan and nothing is due against him. The complainant requested the opposite party to issue No Objection Certificate and Form No. 35 so that hypothecation of Bank can be cancelled from Registration Certificate of car. The opposite party was lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant got served legal notice through his counsel. The opposite party has replied to the notice by taking wrong, false and baseless pleas and demanded Rs. 80,151/- more. It is alleged that demand raised by the opposite party is illegal, null and void as nothing remains due against the complainant. He had already paid 84 installments. It is further pleaded that complainant never agreed to pay interest on fluctuate basis nor opposite party issued any notice regarding any fluctuation in interest or increase in monthly installment. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. He has prayed for direction to the opposite party to issue No Objection Certificate, No Due Certificate and Form No. 35 and pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental tension and agony etc., and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation charges. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version. In written version, the opposite party raised legal objection regarding cause of action, concealment of material facts and limitation. It is alleged that complainant has come before this Forum with malafide intention. He has not abide by terms and conditions of RBI with regard to his car loan and has misled the Forum. That the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost. On merits, it is admitted that complainant has taken loan facility from the opposite party to the tune of Rs. 3,26,000/- to purchase a car in the month of July, 2006. It is denied that opposite party got signatures of complainant on various blank printed forms as per wishes and the complainant signed the same under compulsion. It is pleaded that complainant was made aware about the rate of interest and its fluctuation as per guidelines of the RBI from time to time. The complainant, after going through discussion about loan query and going through the loan agreement, given his consent for disclosure of information/data relating to credit facilities to be availed vide letter dated 14-07-2006. The complainant also filled application form in favour of the opposite party. The opposite party duly filled the documents relating to deed of hypothecation of vehicle, term loan, guarantee agreement and other documents. All these documents were prepared as per prescribed policy of the bank. The complainant was never forced or compelled to sign any extra or blank document. It is admitted that loan period was seven years but it is denied that loan was to be pain in 84 fixed EMIs of Rs. 5320/-. It is pleaded that at the time of advancement of loan, the rate of interest was 9.50% and as per rate of interest, the installment was fixed Rs. 5329/- per month. The rate of interest was variable as per RBI guidelines. The complainant had to make payment as per revised rate of interest. He was very much aware about the specific fact. The opposite party time to time informed the complainant in connection with revised rate of interest and due amount to be paid by the complainant. The complainant had given his written consent about revised rate of interest as per guidelines of RBI vide letter dated 1-5-2009 and also executed demand promissory note of Rs. 2,48,085/- on 1-5-2009 @ of Rs. 12.50% per annum Thereafter the complainant issued acknowledgement of debt/liability to the opposite party on 10-4-2012 in connection with that and as on date Rs. 1,28,110/- is outstanding. After controverting all the other averments, opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint. Both the parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 8-12-2014 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of message (Ex. C-2), photocopy of legal notice alongwith postal receipt (Ex. C-3), photocopy of statement of account (Ex. C-5). In order to rebut this evidence, opposite party has tendered into evidence documents (Ex. OP-1/1 to Ex. OP-1/14) including copy of D.P. Note (Ex. OP-1/4), photocopy of acknowledgement of debt (Ex. OP-1/5), photocopy of deed of hypothecation (Ex. OP-1/5), photocopy of consent letter ( Ex. OP-1/10) and photocopy of agreement (Ex. OP-1/11). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Learned counsel for the parties have reiterated their stand as set up in their respective averments and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that documentary evidence has to prevail upon the oral evidence. The opposite party has produced photocopy of credit sanction intimation (Ex. OP-1/6), which shows the details of the sanctioned loan and rate of interest. As per this intimation, the total sanctioned loan is Rs. 3,26,000/-, rate of interest 9.50 % p.a. and repayment by 84 EMIs of Rs. 5329/-. Ex. OP-1/8 is Deed of Hypothecation. As per this document also, the borrower was to pay interest @ 9.50% p.a. Agreement for term loan is produced by opposite party Ex. OP-1/11. As per this agreement also, the bank has agreed to grant to the borrower loan of Rs. 3,26,000/- at the terms and conditions set forth in schedule (II). As per this schedule, the loan amount was to be paid with interest @ 9.50 %. No intimation or any offer was given to the complainant to revise the rate of interest. The complainant has also never consented for payment of revised rate of interest. Therefore, the documents relied upon by the opposite party also supports the case of the complainant. When the amount has already been paid in 84 installments, the complainant is entitled to the documents prayed for. The complainant is also entitled to compensation for harassment etc., On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has submitted that documentary evidence has to prevail upon the oral evidence. The stand of the opposite party is that complainant was to pay interest at the floating rate as and when revised under the guidelines of RBI. The learned counsel for the complainant has not completely gone through the documents and clauses pointed out. In all these documents, it is specifically mentioned that rate of interest will be 9.50% P.A rising or falling therewith. Therefore, the complainant was not to pay fixed rate of interest, but he was liable to pay fluctuated rate of interest. The calculations are on the basis of revised rate of interest from time to time. The amount shown in the account books is due towards the complainant. He cannot claim 'No Due Certificate' and other documents until and unless the entire outstanding amount is paid. We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions. The entire controversy revolves around the fact that whether the complainant was liable to pay interest @ 9.50% P.A. or at the rate revised from time to time. The complainant has produced his affidavit Ex. C-1. This document is not going to prove agreed rate of interest. Ex. C-2 is the photocopy of message. This message is not related to the account of the complainant. Ex. C-3 is the photocopy of legal notice and Ex. C-4 is reply to the notice. These documents are also not going to prove agreed rate of interest. Ex. C-5 is statement of account. It is also not a document to prove rate of interest. Therefore, the conclusion is that the documents relied upon by the complainant do not prove that he was liable to pay interest at the fixed rate of Interest @ 9.50% or at floating rate. The opposite party has brought on record a consent letter dated 1-5-2009 (Ex. OP-1/2) written by complainant to Bank Manager. In this letter, the complainant has acknowledeged that he is aware that even though the pronote mentions the rate of interest to the Reserve Bank of India/Bank's Prime Lending Rate (PLR) and rising or falling therewith, compounded quarterly and he is liable to pay interest whether debited or not at the said rate and or at such other rate (s) that may be charged by bank. Ex. OP-1/4 is DP note executed by complainant. In this document complainant has acknowledge his liability to pay outstanding amount with interest @ 12.50%. Ex. OP-1/5 is another acknowledgement of liability wherein complainant has again admitted his liability to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,28,110/- inclusive of interest. The credit sanction Intimation (Ex. OP-1/6) does not prove the case of the complainant as argued by the learned counsel for the complainant. Of course as per this document, the rate of interest is mentioned 9.50% P.A. but at the end of information, it is also mentioned that other terms of sanction : usual terms of bank finance. Therefore, from this document it cannot be concluded that complainant was to pay interest at the fixed rate of 9.50% P.A. The learned counsel for the complainant has laid much stress on agreement for term loan (Ex. OP-1/11). Of course, in it it is mentioned that bank has agreed to grant loan of Rs. 3,26,000/- upon the terms and conditions set forth in schedule II but at the same time, terms and conditions detailed in agreement are also included and as per these terms and conditions, borrower agreed to pay interest @9.50%, and it was further added that this rate of interest is subject to rise or falling with the Bank's Prime Lending Rate (PLR)/Medium Term Lending Rate (MTLR), or as such other lending rates that the Bank may determine to charge from time to time in terms of directives of Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, these documents corroborate the stand of the opposite parties. The matter can be examined from another angle also. The complainant is taking contradictory stand. On the one hand, he has stated that he put signatures on blank documents under compulsion and at the same time, he is relying upon these documents to claim rate of interest @ 9.50 %. When the complainant is himself trying to get support of these documents, it cannot be concluded that complainant was compelled or he was under compulsion to put signatures on blank documents. Even otherwise, there is nothing on record to show that complainant was under compulsion to put signatures on blank documents. Therefore, the net conclusion is that as per settled terms and conditions, the complainant was liable to pay interest at the rate which was subject to rise/falling as per directions of Reserve Bank of India. When the complainant has failed to prove that he was liable to pay interest at the fixed rate, he is not entitled to reliefs claimed by him. Hence, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 10-09-2015 (M. P. Singh Pahwa ) President (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member (Jarnail Singh ) Member
| |
