STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Sunil Financiers, SCO No.391, 1st Floor, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor Mohit Bansal.

Second Address :

1st Floor, Near Saini & Saini Electronics, Main Bazar, Patiala Chowk, Chandigarh – Ambala Road, Zirakpur.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

Gurvinder Singh son of Sh.Arjun Singh, r/o H.No.1151, Badal Colony, Zirakpur.

              ....Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh. Arun Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER  (RETD.), PRESIDENT

1.             This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.06.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant), as under:-

“In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed.  The same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed to refund the excess amount of Rs.17,070/- to the complainant.  The OP is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.

This order be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay Rs.27,070/- along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 31.1.2012 till its actual payment, besides paying litigation costs as aforesaid”.

2.             The facts, in brief, are that, on 11.5.2010, the complainant (now respondent), took a personal loan, from the Opposite Party (now appellant), in the sum of for Rs.20,000/-,  which was to be repaid in 12 equal monthly installments of Rs.2,370/- each. According to the complainant, he paid regular equal monthly installments, till November 2010,  but the Opposite Party,  did not issue the receipts of Rs.2,500/- each, for the months of October and November, 2010. It was stated that the complainant was forced to hold back the next equal monthly installment. The Opposite Party threatened the complainant, and his guarantor. The guarantor paid Rs.6000/-, vide receipt dated 28.6.2011,  Rs.5000/- vide receipt Annexure C-9, Rs.2,500/- vide receipt Annexure C-10 and Rs.7,500/- vide receipt Annexure C-11. Thereafter, the complainant paid the last installment of Rs.10,000/-, vide receipt No.17044 dated 9.1.2012. In this manner, the complainant, and his guarantor, paid the total amount of Rs.50,510/- against Rs.28,440/-.  It was further stated that the Opposite Party, had overcharged from the complainant, a sum of Rs.22,010/- (infact Rs. 22,070). It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.            The Opposite Party, in its written version, admitted that the complainant took the personal loan of Rs 20,000/-, from the Opposite Party, which was to be repaid in 12 equal monthly installments of Rs.2,370/- each w.e.f. 15.6.2010 to 15.5.2011. It was stated that the complainant, paid the first installment, in time, and, thereafter, he failed to make the payment of 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th  installments, in time. The Opposite Party, approached the guarantor, for payment of the balance installments, and, on repeated requests, he paid a sum of Rs.6,000/- on 28.6.2011, Rs.5,000/- on 14.7.2011, Rs.2,500/- on 25.9.2011 and Rs.7,500/- on 24.10.2011, and, thereafter, he refused to pay the balance amount. It was further stated that, on the repeated requests of the Opposite Party, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,000/-, vide receipt No.17049 (infact 17044), dated 9.1.2012, towards full and final payment. It was denied that the Opposite Party, overcharged the complainant, by Rs.22,070/-. It was further stated that the complainant and his guarantor, made the total payment of Rs.45,510/-, which was inclusive of installments, late payment charges, visiting charges etc. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

6.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.

7.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

8.              The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, admittedly, on 11.5.2010, the respondent/complainant, took a personal loan, in the sum of Rs.20,000/-,  from the appellant/Opposite Party, which was to be repaid in 12 equal monthly installments of Rs.2,370/- each. He further submitted that only one installment was paid, by the respondent/complainant, in time, and, thereafter, he defaulted in making payment of 2^nd, 3^rd  and 4^th installments, in time. He further submitted that thereafter, a sum of Rs.45,510/-, inclusive of installments, late payment charges, visiting charges etc., was paid by the respondent/complainant and his guarantor, to the Opposite Party. He further submitted that the amount, which was paid by the respondent/complainant and his guarantor, to the appellant/Opposite Party, was in accordance with the terms and conditions, contained in the agreement, executed between the parties. He further submitted that after the full and final payment was made, by the complainant, his file was destroyed by the appellant/Opposite Party. He further submitted that, neither excess amount was paid by the respondent/complainant and his guarantor, nor charged by the appellant/Opposite Party, from him, and, as such, the Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the contrary conclusion. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.

9.             Admittedly, the complainant, obtained a personal loan from the Opposite Party (now appellant), on 11.5.2010, in the sum of for Rs.20,000/-,  which was to be repaid in 12 equal monthly installments of Rs.2,370/- each. There is, no dispute, about the factum, that a sum of Rs.45,510/-,against the loan amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid by the complainant, to the Opposite Party. According to the complainant, he was forced to make payment of excess amount, by the Opposite Party, under threat. In the written version, the Opposite Party, took up the plea, that the amount of Rs.45,510/-, was inclusive of installments, late payment charges, visiting charges etc. The loan amount was to be repaid in 12 equal monthly installments of Rs.2,370/- each. The amount, which the complainant was required to pay, came to be Rs.28,440/-. The Opposite Party could charge late payment charges, visiting charges, and other miscellaneous charges, only on the basis of the terms and conditions of the agreement, allegedly executed between the parties. The Opposite Party, could not claim or charge such charges, without any written agreement, between the parties. In paragraph number 3 of its written version, the Opposite Party, in clear-cut terms, stated that the complete printed file, which was got signed from the complainant, and his guarantor, was destroyed, by the Opposite Party, at the time of receiving the full and final payment from the complainant on 09.01.2012. The complaint was filed on 31.01.2012.  It could not be imagined that the Opposite Party would destroy the file, containing the terms and conditions, on the basis whereof the personal loan was granted to the complainant, in such a short time. It appears, that the Opposite Party, intentionally and deliberately, destroyed the file or concealed the same, from the District Forum, as it knew that, in case, the same was produced before the Fora, the true  facts would come to the surface. In the absence of the terms and conditions of the personal loan, no late payment charges, visiting charges, and miscellaneous charges, could be charged from the complainant, by the Opposite Party. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that the amount of Rs.17,070/- i.e. (Rs.45,510/- minus(–) Rs.28,440/-), was charged, in excess, by the Opposite Party, from the complainant,  and its refusal to refund the same, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice.

10.           One can certainly visualize the plight of a person, who is at a disadvantageous position, just like the complainant, a loanee, against the creditor in a dominant position. The complainant, after making the payment of Rs.45,510/-,  under force, and the threats of the Opposite Party, requested it to refund the excess amount, but to no avail. The complainant, thus, underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, on account of the acts of omission and commission, of the Opposite Party. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that, in such a case, the complainant was entitled to compensation, on account of the mental agony and physical harassment, caused to him, at the hands of the Opposite Party. The District Forum was, thus, right in granting compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, to the complainant.

11.         No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.

12.         In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order, passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

13.         For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

14.         Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

15.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

August 16, 2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg