Haryana

Panchkula

CC/119/2018

MIHAN SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDB FINANCILA SERVICES & ANOTHER. - Opp.Party(s)

NARESH TUNDWAL

11 Mar 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	119 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	15.06.2018
Date of Decision	:	11.03.2020

 

Mihan Singh, SDC, son of Sh. Molu Ram, resident of C/o Haryana Government Mandi Board, C-6, Sector-6, Mandi Bhawan, Second Floor, LA Branch Panchkula(Haryana).

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

HDB Financial Services, 2^nd Floor, SCO No.87, Sector-5, MDC, Panchkula through its Branch Manager.

….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Sh. Naresh Tundwal, Advocate for complainant.    

Sh. Rahul Katoch, Advocate for OP.

 

ORDER

(Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the opposite party through their executives approached the complainant telephonically and told that they are providing loans to the needy persons on lower interest rate and further allured the complainant that the loan is being sanctioned by the OP on low documentation. The complainant, believing on the version of the opposite party, agreed to avail personal loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and submitted the requisite documents with the opposite party. At that time the OP obtained six blank signed cheques from the complainant of the Haryana State Cooperative Apex, Bank Ltd. Sector-6, Panchkula. Thereafter, the OP sanctioned  the loan of Rs.1,10,000/- to the complainant, however only an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was disbursed in the account of the complainant on 07.01.2017 and the said loan amount was to be paid in 48 easy monthly installment of Rs.2,976/- per month(i.e.in four years). The OP has kept on deducting the monthly installment from the salary account of the complainant. Up till 04.12.2017, the OP had received 11 installments from the account of the complainant against the loan of Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant was again contacted by the executive of the OP and again the said official disclosed the complainant that the track record of the complainant is good and hence, they are offering the complainant with further loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on lower rate of interest than the earlier sanctioned loan being the valuable customer of the OP. On alluring by the officials of the OP, he again agreed for the same. However, at the time of grant of second loan, the OP again obtained the seven blank signed cheques from the complainant, at this time the complainant had issued the said cheques pertaining to other saving account maintained with the Haryana State Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. Sector-4, Panchkula. Thereafter, the OP disbursed an amount of Rs.1,00,651/-instead of Rs.2,00,000/- in the account of the complainant. After that, the OP got tried to deduct the monthly EMI of Rs.5,335/- from the salary account of the complainant instead of the saving account of the complainant and due to this reason the said EMI could not be deducted. The OP contacted the complainant and disclosed about the said facts, the complainant was surprised and contacted the Branch of the Haryana State Cooperative Apex, Bank Ltd. and asked about the non clearance of EMI. The officials of the said bank disclosed the complainant that there is no intimation regarding the deduction of EMI by the OP. The officials of the said bank further disclosed that as there are sufficient funds in the account of the complainant and if the OP will made any request for deduction of EMI from his account then definitely the EMI will be disbursed to the OP. On this, the complainant contacted the OP and inquired about the facts then the officials of the OP disclosed the complainant that the EMI was to be deducted from the salary account of the complainant, as both the earlier loan account and fresh loan account was merged but they did not disclosed the fact to the complainant. Thereafter, on the repeated requests of the complainant the OP waived off the bouncing charges of Rs.500/- and directed the complainant in future they will receive the EMI in cash from the complainant on or before 8^th of every month. Accordingly, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.5,335/- to the executive of the OP and the said executive issued receipt of the same vide receipt no.4501839 dated 17.01.2018. The said official also returned the six blank signed cheques of the complainant of saving account maintained by the complainant. On receipt of the said cheque the complainant was surprised that all the said cheques were with different amount but no date was mentioned therein. Thereafter, in the month of February, March and April, 2018 again the official of the OP namely Lalit Kumar visited the complainant to receive the EMI and again the complainant paid the EMI in cash and said official issued receipt of the same vide receipt no.4677009 dated 07.02.2018, receipt no.4760042 dated 06.3.2018(wrongly mentioned as 06.02.2018) and receipt no. 5062098 dated 06.04.2018 respectively. In the month of April, 2018 the complainant visited the bank and surprised to know that the OP was receiving  the EMI in cash from the complainant and also deducting  the EMI from the salary account of the complainant. On coming to know about the facts, the complainant immediately, visited the OP. The officials of the OP in order to pacify the matter issued a cheque of Rs.3,117/- to the complainant and assured that within a week time the balance payment of Rs.7,553/- will be debited in this account. But thereafter, no amount was debited to the account of the complainant or adjusted in the EMI for the month of May, 2018 & June, 2018. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered harassment, mental agony and financial loss. Hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being baseless and false; no cause of action; the complainant has not come with clean hands; estoppal; no jurisdiction; the complainant does not fall under the definition of the consumer and no locus standi. On merits, it is stated that the complainant approached the OP and had obtained financial assistance to the tune of Rs.1,10,000/- under reference of loan agreement no.2075837 as a personal loan. The OP explained  entire terms and conditions of the loan agreement  and other loan documents, the complainant duly entered into a loan agreement dated 23.12.2016 bearing contract no.2075837 and the said loan amount was disbursed upon terms and conditions stipulated therein alongwith other documents which were executed in pursuance to the said loan. It is also stated that the said loan transaction was duly governed by the terms and conditions stipulated in the loan documents, duly and voluntarily agreed upon between the complainant and OP. As per loan documents, the complainant had agreed to repay  the said loan amount together with interest @21% p.a. payable  in term of 60 monthly installments of Rs.2,976/- per months on stipulated due dates commenced from 04.02.2017 accordingly deducted from the salary account of the complainant as requested by the complainant vide its request. It is further stated that he again approached the OP and requested to enhance the personal loan amounting to Rs.2,10,000/- which was accepted by the OP. Accordingly, the complainant duly entered into a Loan Agreement dated 08.12.2017 bearing contract no.3454436. The complainant  had agreed to repay the said loan amount together with interest @18.02% p.a. payable in term of 60 monthly installments of Rs.5,335/- per months on stipulated due dates commenced from 08.01.2018. He has requested to disburse above loan amount after adjustment of previous outstanding loan amount of Rs.98,058/-. On request of the complainant, the OP credited  a sum of Rs.98,058/- of previous loan account of the complainant and closed earlier loan account and after said adjustment credited the balance loan amount of Rs.1,00,651/- in the account of complainant upon terms and conditions stipulated. The complainant has never given any request in writing or any intimation to the OP regarding the deduction of monthly installment from the saving account. The OP has returned excess amount of Rs.3,117/- vide cheque no.605409 dated 13.03.2018 and Rs.4,935/-vide cheque no.610812 dated 26.04.2018, hence total amount of Rs.8,052/- has been paid by the OP to the complainant, which was duly reflected from the account statement maintained by the OP. So, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade of practice on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-12 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Annexure R/A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to R-9 and closed the evidence.

                During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the OP has submitted the copy of Cash Management Service-Payments dated 09.05.2018 as Mark ‘A’, copy of Disbursal report of Loan A/c No. 2075837(Ist loan) as Mark ‘B’ and copy of Sanctioned Confirmation and Request for Disbursement through NEFT/RTGS dated 28.12.2016(Ist loan) as Mark ‘C’ which are taken on record for the proper adjudication of the case.

4.             We have heard learned counsels for the complainant as well as OP. We have gone through the entire record available on record including the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the OP, minutely and carefully.

5.             Admittedly, the complainant has availed the personal loan from the OP twice, the details of which are given as under:-

Details of Ist loan A

Loan  Agreement  No.	Dated	Saving A/c	Amount credited	No. of EMIs	Rate of interest	Monthly EMIs
2075837	23.12.2016	0009340010011614	102617	60	21%	2976

Details of IInd loan B

Loan  Agreement  No.	Dated	Saving A/c	Amount credited	No. of EMIs	Rate of interest	Monthly EMIs
3454436	08.12.2017	0009340010011614	100651	60	18.02%	5335

 

The complainant had paid 11 installments  amounting to Rs.32,736/- qua first loan(A) and thereafter, the second  loan, details of which mentioned above at B, was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.2,10,000/- by crediting an amount of Rs.1,00,651/- in the account of the complainant after making the deductions of Rs.98,058/- qua the first loan and Rs.11,291/- on account of processing charges etc. During the repayment of installment qua the second loan an amount of Rs.21,340/- was collected by the OP in cash at personal level simultaneously with the deductions of EMIs for the month of Jan, Feb, March and April, 2018 from the account of the complainant. The complainant has alleged deficiency on several counts on the part of the OP.

The first grievance of the complainant is with regard to the amount credited in his account vide first loan. It is alleged that an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- was sanctioned whereas an amount of Rs.1,02,617/- was credited in his account. We have perused the Disbursal Report Mark ‘B’ from which it has been found that an amount of Rs.7,383/-has been charged on account of processing fees/charges, HDFC Slic Credit Protect Plus, Stamp Duty paid to Bank and Broken period interest. Thus, we reject this contention being baseless and meritless.  

The next grievance is with regard to the tenure as well as rate of interest qua both the loans. This contention is also not tenable in view of the fact that rate of interest as well as tenure of the loan was clearly mentioned in both the loans agreement. As per Annexure R-2 pertaining to the first loan, terms of the loan was 60 months and rate of interest was 21%. With regard to second loan (Annexure R-4), the rate of interest was 18.02% and terms of the loan was 60 months. Both the above mentioned loan agreements bears the signature of the complainant, hence, we reject this contention of the complainant also.

Another grievance of the complainant is that the OP has merged the two loans. This contention also stands negated in view of the fact that the complainant had given his clear consent vide Annexure R-6 to make an adjustment of Rs.98,058/- qua first loan. For the sake of convenience and clarification Annexure C-6 colly is reproduced as under:-

“I/We hereby confirm that we have been sanctioned a loan for Rs. 2,10,000/- for a term of 60 months at a rate of 18.02% per annum with a total fee of Rs.2642/- of which Rs.0/- has already been paid by us & balance fee of Rs.2,642/- is to be deducted  from the loan amount.

I/We hereby request you to credit  a sum of Rs.10,065/- being the disbursement proceeds of the said loan directly to my/our bank account through the NEFT/RTGS(Real Time Gross  Settlements) facility offered  by RBI. I understand that the money will reach my/our account within the time stipulated by RBI.”

The last grievance of the complainant relates to the dual charging of the EMI for the month of January, February, March, April 2018 by way of cash collection from the complainant as well as debiting the account of the complainant to the extent of Rs.10,670/-. The OP has admitted its lapse while receiving the EMI in cash as well as debiting the account of the complainant to the extent of Rs.10670/-. However, it is stated that a sum of Rs.9,910/- has already been refunded to the complainant. We have perused the relevant report/record on file and find the details of cash collection and deductions of the amount from the account of the complainant as follows:

Sr. No.	Month	Deductions from Saving Bank A/c	Deposit by cash
1	Januray,2018	Rs.5,335/-( dishonoured)	Rs.5,335/-
2	February,  2018	Rs.5,335/-( dishonoured)	Rs.5,335/-
3	March,2018	Rs.5,335/-	Rs.5,335/-
4	April, 2018	Rs.5,335/-	Rs.5,335/-

 

6.             From above, it is clear that OP has received the amount of EMI in cash as well as debited the account of the complainant for the month of March and April, 2018 and in this manner has received an excess amount of Rs.10,670/- from the complainant. Admittedly, an amount of Rs.8052+1858=9910/- has been refunded to the complainant in lieu of dual deductions of the EMIs but an amount of Rs.760/- still remains to be unpaid. The OP has attempted to justify its mistake stating that Rs.1,770/- has been charged on account of bouncing charges and Rs.800/-on account of cash collection charges. We do not agree with the OP in this regard.

7.             Having gone through the entire record including detailed terms and conditions of both the loan agreements governing the repayment matter etc., we do not find any such terms which empowers the OP to receive  the cash collection charges of Rs.800/-. In view of the aforementioned facts, it is well proved beyond any doubt that the OP has compelled the complainant to approach this Forum by its act of making dual deductions from the saving bank account as well as collection of EMIs in cash for the month of March and April, 2018. Therefore, we have no hesitation to conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of OP while delivering the services to the complainant; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

8.             As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.760/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
2. To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

 

9.             The OP shall comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the OP. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on:11.03.2020

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal          

        Member                           Member                      President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                   Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini,                                

Member