SMT. RAVI SUSHA  : PRESIDENT

         Complainant  filed this complaint under sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking to  get an order directing opposite parties to  close the  loan A/c No.KNRHP/561385 with full satisfaction, issue no objection certificate for cancellation of the hypothecation endorsement in RC of the vehicle in dispute and also Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation and  cost of the litigation expense.

   Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:  The complainant had availed a refinance facility from the 2^nd OP through 1^st OP to his  JCB Excavator loader under hire purchase scheme having loan A/c No.KNRHP/561385 which started from  March 2020 to 29 months, total loan sanctioned  is Rs.10,00,000/-  to repay  equal monthly instalment of Rs.67,000/-, he had  regularly paid the  monthly instalment  amount even during the lock down period.  Subsequently the government had declared moratorium for loan.  The complainant has also opted the scheme of  moratorium.  Even then he had paid the loan instalment   within the period of 29 months as agreed  in the loan agreement. The complainant submits is that he had paid the entire loan amount with interest as per the terms of the loan agreement and hence requested the 1^st OP to issue no objection certificate for cancellation of the hypothecation endorsement in the registration certificate.  At that time the OP has demanded to pay an additional amount of Rs.1,26,932/- including AHC charges of Rs.56,331/-. According to complainant  demand of such amount is illegal and against the  public policy.  The OPs have no such right to demand such exorbitant rate of interest on loan amount.  As the complainant had opted for moratorium scheme he is liable to pay only an additional interest  to the instalment of moratorium period. The complainant had issued a lawyer notice  to 1^st OP  demanded to furnish the detailed  account statement, copy of loan agreement and convince the complainant about the outstanding liability but the OPs neither issue any reply nor take any action to solve the issue. The OPs demanded exorbitant amount  from the complainant after repayment of entire loan  instalment within the period  stipulated in the loan agreement.   Hence the complaint.

      After receiving notice, OP has filed written version denying the allegations of the complainant raised in the complaint.  It is submitted that the financial facility  was taken  on 7/3/2020 and 1^st  installment was to be paid on 5/4/2020 and last instalment on 5/3/2022.  The financed amount  was Rs.10lakh, together with the finance charge of Rs.1,76,000/- repayable  in 24 monthly instalments @Rs.65800/- for 1^st 17 months and Rs.8200/- for next 7 months.  The complainant herein had also agreed to pay additional  hire charge  at3% per month  per instalment in case of any delay or default in making payment of higher instalments.  The complainant has only paid 17 instalments and part of 18^th installments and the additional hire charges and expenses are due and outstanding.  The OPs submitted that the  complainant has sold the vehicle by violating the terms and conditions of  HP agreement is a criminal offence and the OP reserve the right to take   criminal action against  the complainant and the OPs have no way  liable to pay any compensation.  As per the  accounts maintained by  OP in usual course of business a sum of Rs.1,26,932/- is due and outstanding  as on 2/7/2022. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence prayed for  dismissal of the complaint.  

   At the evidence stage, complainant has filed his chief affidavit and documents. Examined as PW1, marked Extrs.A1 to A3.  Ext.A1 is the copy of lawyer notice, Ext.A2 is acknowledgment card, Ext.A3 is  copy of account statement .  PW1 has not  been cross-examined by OP.  On the side of OP, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.  During  the pendency of this case, complainant has filed a petition to cause  produce the loan agreement with the complainant connected to this cse,  Account statement of loan account and guide line followed by the OPs for repayment of loan under moratorium scheme issued by RBI.  The said petition was allowed and directed the OPs to produce the above said documents.  But the OPs has not produced neither of the documents sought by the complainant through the said petition.  It is presumed that those documents are in the custody of OPs.  Non-production of the those documents are intentional, so adverse inference is drawn against the OPs.

   Complainant’s case is that he had paid the entire loan amount with interest as per the terms of the loan agreement and hence requested the 1^st OP to issue no objection certificate for cancellation of the hypothecation endorsement in the registration certificate.  At that time the OP has demanded to pay an additional amount of Rs.1,26,932/- including AHC charges of Rs.56,331/-. According to complainant  demand of such amount is illegal and against the  public policy.  The OPs have no such right to demand such exorbitant rate of interest on loan amount.  As the complainant had opted for moratorium scheme he is liable to pay only an additional interest  to the instalment of moratorium period.

  For proving the said allegation complainant filed cause production  petition for producing documents to clarify those points.  Since OP failed to produce those documents, the amount remitted by the complainant  to OP bank as shown in Ext.A3  can be considered and we are of the view that the complainant had paid the entire loan amount with legal interest.

   Moreover, it is seen that the OPs have not adduced any evidence neither oral nor document, even not cross-examined the complainant to establish their contentions raised in their version.  Mere contentions in the version without clarify through material  in evidence, cannot be taken into account. Hence the averments and evidence submitted by the complainant are unchallenged.

  Hence we are constrained to believe the complainant’s case and found that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

       In the result, complaint is allowed in part.  Opposite parties are directed to close the loan account No.KNRHP/561385 with full satisfaction (a) directed to issue NOC to the complainant with regard to the loan in this case.   (b) Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant  and cost  Rs.5000/- .The order shall be complied by Opposite parties 1&2 within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  Failing which the amount of Rs.25,000/- carries interest @7% per annum from the date of order till realization.  Complainant can execute the order  as per provision of Consumer Protection Act 2019.   

Exts:

A1-Copy of lawyer notice

A2-Acknowledgment card

A3-copy of Account statement

PW1- Abdul Khader.A- complainant

Sd/                                                             Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                        MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR