Date of Filing      17.05.2023

                                                                                                      Date of Disposal: 26.10.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),                                  …….PRESIDENT

               THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL,                                                                        ……MEMBER-I

CC.No.50/2023

THIS THURSDAY, THE 26^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2023

Mrs.R.Nalini,

W/o.Mr.K.Rajan,

No.157/20, Gandhipuram,

Tiruvallur -602 001.                                                                             .....Complainant.

                                                                              //Vs//

1.The Manager,

L&T Finance Service Limited –Branch Office,

43/609, Jagajeevan Ram Street,

Rajajipuram, Thiruvallur 602 001.

2.The Manager,

L&T Finance Service Limited – Head Office,

28, EthirajSalai, Egmore,

Chennai 600 008.

3.The Manager,

L&T Finance Service Limited – Regional Office,

Technopolis, 7^th Floor,

A-Wing, Plot No.4,

Block –BP, Sector-V, Salt Lake,

Kolkata – 700 091.                                                                         …..Opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant                            :  Mr.K.Rajan, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties                     :  M/s.V.Balasubramani, Advocate.

This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 09.10.2023in the presence of Mr.K.Rajan, counsel for the complainant and M/s.V.Balasubramani, counsel for the opposite partiesand upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT.Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party with respect to the claim of excess repayment of loan amount than admitted at the time of availing loan along with a prayer to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant along with Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. It was the case of the complainant that she had availed a loan for Rs.41,964/- from the 1^st  opposite party for business purpose on 01.12.2019 under loan Account No.L.111976974424 with simple interest at 24% per annum to be repaid in 24 months by way of EMI of Rs.2200/- per month. The complainant had discharged the entire loan amount as per the schedule of payment mentioned in the loan agreement and loan pass book barring the break in repayment of 4 instalments deferred during corona lock down period.  Thereafter the EMI was continuously and regularly paid and the entire loan amount with interest had been completely discharged. While so, when there was no outstanding dues to be paid by the complainant to the opposite party, the employees of the 1^st opposite party acting as collection agents had been making threatening phone calls and demanded more money towards loan amount. Despite showing the repayment details, the employees and agents of the 1^st opposite party continuously harassed and abused the complainant which caused mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complainant issued a legal notice dated 22.10.2022 to the opposite parties narrating all the details.  The 1^st opposite party without any substantial proof and in contradiction with the payment schedule given to the complainant sent reply on 24.03.2023 wherein it was wrongly informed that the complainant had to pay Rs.73,160/- in 34 monthly Equated Monthly instalments which was against the agreed schedule of payments. Collection of additional EMIs over and above the agreed repayment schedule amounts to deficiency in service and thus the opposite parties committed deficiency in service. Thus the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant by the act of opposite parties along with cost of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties:-

3. Complainant approached and availed finance facility from the opposite parties to the tune of Rs.41,964/- by executing a loan agreement No.L11197697427 dated 01.12.2019, the complainant had agreed and undertook to repay the same together with interest 24% per annum in 24 monthly instalments each of Rs.2200/- per month.  The first instalment starts on 04.01.2020 and the last instalment ended on 04.09.2022.  At the inception the complainant paid first three months of her instalments regularly and thereafter from March 2020 onwards she started to commit default and she requested to grant moratorium from paying the instalments due to covid-19 as such the opposite party has granted moratorium from paying the instalments. A sum of Rs.2200/- was due and payable from 1-33 monthly instalments and Rs.560/- was payable in 34 instalments, totalling of Rs.73,160/- for the period from 1-34 instalments.  On acceptance of the same the complainant had paid the Loan Amount with increased tenure and paid 29 monthly instalments and left four instalments of Rs.7160/-.  Hence it was very clear that as per the Statement of Accounts filed by the opposite parties as on today a sum of Rs.7160/- was due and payable by the complainant.  It was submitted that they had filed the Statement of Accounts to substantiate that the complainant was due and payable for an amount of Rs.7160/- to the opposite parties. Complainant had filed the complaint without any substance and only with intent to escape from the liability of paying the amount.  Thus they sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

4. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A4 were submitted. On the side of opposite parties proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 were submitted.

Points for consideration:-

1) Whether the complaint allegations against the opposite parties demanding excess repayment of loan amount than admitted at the time of availing loan has been successfully proved by the complainant with admissible evidence?

2) If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

5.  Point No.1:-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in supportof his contentions;

1. Loan Pass Book in favour of complainant dated 01.12.2019 was marked as Ex.A1;
2. Legal notice issued by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party dated 22.10.2022 was marked as Ex.A2;
3. Returned cover was marked as Ex.A3;
4. Reply notice issued by the opposite parties to the complainant dated 24.03.2023 was marked as Ex.A4;

On the side of opposite parties the following documents were filed in proof of their defence;

5. Letter of authority was marked as Ex.B1;
6. Loan application dated 28.11.2019 was marked as Ex.B2;
7. Demand Promissory Note dated 27.11.2019 was marked as Ex.B3;
8. Member consent Form was marked as Ex.B4;
9. KYC Documents was marked as Ex.B5;
10. Foreclosure was marked as Ex.B6;
11. Statement of Accounts was marked as Ex.B7;

6. Heard both sides.

7. The crux of the arguments adduced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is that the complainant was borrower regularly repaying the loan amount but could not pay the loan only during Covid-19 period and hence had availed the moratorium announced during the said period by the opposite parties Bank.  It is his argument that the total instalments for repayment of the loan was 24 and as she could not pay the loan during the Covid-19 period, 4 months of instalments was extended and that she had completed the entire repayment loan.  However, the opposite parties claiming excess amount of Rs.7160/- was threatening her to pay the said amount. He also cited the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in WP.No.476/2020 in Small Scale Industrial Manufacturers Associations verses Union of India and others dated 23.03.2021 wherein it has been held that there shall not any charge of interest or compound interest during the moratorium period and that the same is applicable to the all Banks.  He also cited another judgment rendered in ICICI Bank verses Shanti Devi Sharma and others dated 15.05.2008 to point out the instructions given to Banks and financial institutions with regard to moratorium.  Thus he sought for the complaint to be allowed as prayed for. 

8. On the other hand the opposite parties argued that the instalments initially provided was for 24 months.  However, due to the moratorium announced during the Covid-19 period the instalments were extended to 34 months and that the complainant had paid only 29 monthly instalments and left 4 instalments amount of Rs.7160/-. Hence as on today the complainant is due to pay Rs.7160/-.  Further it was argued that only the first three instalments were paid correctly by the complainant.  It is his main argument that only due to the moratorium availed by the complainant the monthly instalments were increased from 24 months to 34 months.  He also reproduced the RBI guidelines issued under DOR No.BP.BC.47/21.04.048/2019-20 dated 27.03.2020 with regard to the moratorium and argued that interest part accrued for the 4 months during moratorium period and accordingly as per the RBI guidelines the instalment periods were extended and rescheduled.  Thus he argued that the contention of the complainant that she had entirely paid the loan amount and nothing balance was to be paid was false and sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

9. This Commission appreciated the entire pleadings and material evidences produced by both the parties. The complainant had produced the loan Pass Book issued by the opposite parties wherein it is seen that the number of instalments was 24 months.  The complainant had admitted that she has not paid the 4 month instalments availing the moratorium announced during Covid-19 period.  Further she stated that those 4 instalments was paid from 25 months to 28 months and hence nothing due was to be paid towards the loan for the opposite parties.  As per the Supreme Court’s direction no interest is to be charged for the instalments not paid during the moratorium period.  The opposite parties had contended that the repayment schedule was modified from 24 months to 34 months.  However, no piece of evidence was produced by the opposite parties to show that the number of instalments was extended upto 34 months and that the complainant was put on notice with regard to extended EMIs.  It was also not established that the complainant accepted for the increase in instalments. When it is the specific direction by the Supreme Court that no interest sould be levied on the amount unpaid during the moratorium period the opposite parties cannot unilaterally calculate interest and increase the repayment amount and also the repayment scheduled period. The Statement of Accounts did not clearly show the pending amount of Rs.7160/- to be paid by the complainant as contended by the opposite parties.  When there is a contract for repayment of loan amount between the complainant and the opposite parties, the oppostie parties cannot unilaterally alter the schedule of payment i.e., the terms of contract.  In such facts and circumstances we are of the view that the complainant had proved that she had paid the entire loan amount and nothing remains to be paid by her.  When the complainant had proved her contention, the onus shifts to opposite parties who failed to disprove the complaint allegations and that complainant is due to pay 4 months extra EMI amount.  Hence we hold that the opposite parties claiming an amount of Rs.7160/- to be paid by the complainant excess for availing the moratorium benefit is illegal.  Claiming such amount is clear unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  This point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite party.

Point No.2:-

10. With regard to the relief to be granted the complainant has sought for only compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to be paid by the opposite parties for the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service committed by them.  However, considering the nature of loan and amount involved we award a compensation  of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the opposite parties for unnecessorily disturbing the complainant claiming an excess amount of Rs.7160/-.  We also award cost of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is party allowed against the opposite parties directing them jointly and severally

a)To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only)towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant.

b) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 26^thday of October 2023

    -Sd-                                                                                                                  -Sd-

MEMBER-I                                                                                                    PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by theopposite parties:-

     -Sd-                                                                                                              -Sd-

MEMBER-I                                                                                                   PRESIDENT