Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/695/2017

Amarjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Birinder Singh

21 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/695/2017
Date of Institution	:	06/10/2017
Date of Decision	:	21/02/2019

 

1.     Amarjit Singh son of Gurdev Singh, aged about 65 years, resident of House No.6, Sector 10, Randhawa Road, Kharar, Distt. SAS Nagar.

2.     Balwinder Kaur wife of Amarjit Singh, aged about 60 years, resident of House No.6, Sector 10, Randhawa Road, Kharar, Distt. SAS Nagar.

… Complainants

V E R S U S

Fullerton India Credit Company Limited, through its Managing Director.

1^st Address :     3^rd Floor, No.165, Megh Towers, PH Road, Maduravoyal, Chennai 600095.

2^nd Address:      Floor 5 & 6 Wing, Supreme IT Park Supreme City, Behind Lake Castle Powal, Mumbai-400076.

3^rd Address :     1^st Floor, SCO No.141 & 142, Sector 8C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160008.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                     

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Birinder Singh, Counsel for complainants
	:	Sh. Tushar Arora, Counsel for OP

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         The pleadings in brief, as set out in the consumer complaint are, complainants No.1 & 2 are husband and wife and senior citizens.  Their case is, complainant No.1 had raised a loan from OP in the second week of August, 2007 for renovation of the house.  Earlier to it, complainant had already taken loan of Rs.80,000/- from Kashatriya Gramin Bank and Rs.40,000/- from ICICI Bank and the OP had undertaken to discharge this loan liability on behalf of the complainants. OP had sanctioned a loan of Rs.3,25,000/- including the discharge of liability and net amount of Rs.1,98,000/- was transferred by the OP in the account of complainant No.1 with HDFC Bank. The said amount was to be discharged in 114 Equated Monthly Installments (EMIs) of Rs.5,462/- starting from 7.11.2007, but, the complainants were forced to pay EMI of Rs.5,463/- by the OP. The case of the complainants is that they paid all the EMIs on time through salary/pension account without any default.  The complainants in the year 2013 had come to know 9 more EMIs of Rs.5,462/- were added without their knowledge and consent. The protest letter was submitted, but, no reply was given.  Their further case is, entire loan amount was discharged in the year 2017 and then they asked for the NOC and return of all the documents of title, but, OPs raised demand of Rs.16,251/- which was subsequently raised to Rs.52,065/-. The OP also stated that the cheques of the complainants bounced, therefore, penal charges were levied while, in fact, no installment was deposited through cheque. Hence, the present consumer complaint praying for a direction to the OP to issue the No Due Certificate; return the original property documents; pay Rs.two lakhs alongwith interest for causing physical and mental harassment and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses. 
2.         OP contested the consumer complaint submitted its reply and, inter alia, claimed Rs.1,20,681/- and overdue charges of Rs.29,708/- reflected as pending in the loan account of the complainant No.1, as detailed in paragraph No.2.  It was further submitted, in the precedents referred in written statement, it was held matters pertaining to settlement of account does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. It is also the case, consumer complaint is time barred having not been preferred within two years from the date of payment as was claimed.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
5.         Per pleadings of the parties, it is the admitted case, in toto 114 EMIs were fixed of the rate mentioned in the consumer complaint. Per pleadings of the OP, it is a clear cut admission that all 114 EMIs fixed were paid by the complainants on time.  There was no default at all in payment of EMIs uptil 2017.
6.         Per pleadings and documents produced, it is the case of the complainants entire loan monthly installments were paid by them in the loan account with the OP firstly from the salary account and subsequently from the pension account and some amount was deposited in cash.  These facts were not impeached by the OP in the written statement.  While in the written statement furnished it was referred that some cheques bounced and, therefore penalty was imposed. No record of any sort was produced that at any point of time payment was made through cheque.  It is also the admitted case, no default was made while making the payment of installments of 114 EMIs.  Now from where the theory of bounced cheque has been introduced is not known.
7.         Now we shall refer to the paradoxical, self-contradictory and inconsistent stand taken by the OP as per record.  This shall be referred from the own documents of the OP.  Perusal of the own documents of the OP shows on 10.7.2017 (Annexure C-5), installment overdue notice was issued by the OP to the complainants in which it was shown that as on 30.6.2017, an amount of Rs.16,251/- was due to the OP from the complainants.  After a lapse of nearly one month, again a loan recall notice was issued by the OP on 8.8.2017 (Annexure C-6) in which under paragraph No.7 it was alleged that the total amount due was Rs.52,065/- payable by the complainants in the loan account raised from the OP.  How this amount of about Rs.36,000/- increased just in a month is ridiculous and is not understandable. No explanation of this has come on record. 
8.         Again there is a contradictory stand in the written statement and in paragraph No.3 it was referred that the amount overdue from the complainant is Rs.1,20,681/- and over charge of Rs.29,708/-. First installment payment notice amount was different; after a month it was different and at the time of filing of the written statement before this Forum on 10.1.2018 it is different.  The matter does not end here.  Even during the pendency of the consumer complaint, another notice (Annexure C-9) was issued by the OP to the complainant.  This notice is dated 16.3.2018 and under paragraph No.7 it was mentioned that total outstanding amount in the loan account of the complainant comes to Rs.53,196/-. The pleadings and documents of the OP contradicts each other and whole of their action is rendered doubtful. They have not come up with a clear cut stand that EMIs were raised on account increase of rate of interest and they have also not shown any document that any installment was paid by the complainants by way of cheques which bounced and again as per their own documents, they are taking different pleas with regard to the amount due.  None of their plea is convincing and believable at all.  It is not a case of settlement of accounts, but, the complainants had claimed that entire loan amount was discharged by them from the salary and pension accounts without making any default and now in the autumn of their lives, being above 60 years of age and senior citizens, they are being harassed by the OP in not returning the original documents. We have already referred that the stand of the OP is shattered from their own documents on record and they are talking in air and have changed colours time and again.  This shows that the entire loan amount was discharged by the complainants with the OP and now nothing is due from them to the OP.
9.         The plea of the present consumer complaint being time barred is also not substantiated from the record as even during the pendency of the present consumer complaint on 6.3.2018 (Annexure C-9) loan recall notice was issued by the OP that an amount of Rs.53,196/- is due. As such it is a continuing cause of action.  The OP could not substantiate their plea of defence raised in the written statement. 
10.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer compliant deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OP is directed as under :-

1. To immediately issue the No Dues Certificate and return the original documents, as referred in the consumer complaint, to the complainants.
2. To pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainants as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony & harassment caused to them;
3. To pay to the complainants Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

11.         This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of directions at Sr.No.(i) & (iii) above.
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
21/02/2019	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	President