Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/222/2015

Sandeep Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director, Tata Motors finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. davinder Lubana Adv.

22 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	222 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	30.04.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	22.09.2016

 

 

 

 

Sandeep s/o Sh.Gian Chand Yadav, resident of House No.128-A, Small Flats, Housing Board Complex, Dhanas, Chandigarh.    

 

             Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Managing Director, Tata Motors Finance Ltd., #139-140, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

 

2]  President, Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Registered Office Nanavati Mahalaya, 3^rd Floor, 18 Homi Mody Street, Mumbai 400001

 

      Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

           

 

Argued By: Sh.Vipan Kumar, Counsel for the complainant

None for OPs

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

                                As per the case, the complainant had approached CMPL, Phase-1, Chandigarh to purchase a Tata ACE H.T.High Deck vehicle for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment and as such, was supplied quotation on 13.2.2015 for Rs.4,04,672/- for latest model (Ann.C-1).  It is averred that the complainant on 13.2.2015 (on the same day) gave an advance of Rs.2000/- to CMPL Motors for the said vehicle (Ann.C-2). It is also averred that on the assurance of Opposite Party No.1 that it would provide loan @9% p.a. only, the complainant made down payment of Rs.70,000/- to CMPL Motors on 20.2.2015 and the remaining amount of Rs.3,34,672/- was financed by Opposite Party No.1.  However, the complainant was shocked to see an SMS from OP dated 1.3.2015 that complainant’s first EMI Rs.9810/- for the said loan is due on 2.4.2015.  It is stated that this amount of EMI is quite higher than expected by the complainant & as promised by Opposite Party No.1 and it implies that the rate of interest is about 17% per annum.  The matter was brought to the notice of Opposite Party NO.1 with the request to reduce the rate of interest or cancel the loan, but Opposite Party No.1 did nothing (Ann.C-3). It is also stated that the complainant also shocked to see the Contract Details supplied by the Opposite Parties on 30.3.2015 wherein the Initial Hire amount is mentioned as Rs.64,672/- instead of Rs.70,000/- paid by the complainant (Ann.C-4). The complainant then sent legal notice to the OPs (Ann.C-5 & C-6), but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above act of the OPs as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed joint reply and admitted that they are engaged in the business of finance. It is denied that the complainant was informed by the Opposite Parties that they shall arrange the loan at the lowest market rate available. It is pleaded that what is the rate of interest being charged by other banks and financial institutions, is not, in any manner, related to the rate of interest being charged by the OPs. It is stated that the OPs have released an amount of Rs.3.4 lacs in favour of the dealer in terms of the loan agreement entered into by and between the complainant and the OPs and in case there is any excess amount that has been paid by the complainant to the dealer, the OPs are not, in any manner, concerned with the same.  It is also stated that the initial higher amount has not been paid to the answering OPs but to the dealer and the answering OPs does not have any relationship in respect of the payment, which has been made by the complainant to the dealer.  It is submitted that the rate of interest being charged is strictly in accordance with the loan agreement.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

3]       Rejoinder has been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Parties.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       As none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties on the date fixed for arguments i.e. 15.09.2016, we therefore, proceed to dispose of the complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) even in absence of the OPs.  We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       As per the submissions of the complainant, he approached CMPL Motors Pvt. Ltd. for the purchase of Tata ACE H.T. High Deck Vehicle for the purpose of earning his livelihood.  The quotation, as per the vehicle description ACE H.T. High Deck, was made for Rs.4,04,672/- and in response, the complainant made payment of advance amount of Rs.2000/- and claims to have assured by the officials of Opposite Party No.1 that they will arrange loan for the complainant at the lowest market rate available and agreed to arrange it at the rate of 9% per annum only. Claimed that complainant was referred to Opposite Party NO.1 by CMPL Motors Pvt. Ltd., for the purpose of availing loan facility. It is submitted that on 20.2.2015, the complainant made down payment of Rs.70,000/- to CMPL Motors and an amount of Rs.3,34,672/- was financed by Opposite Party No.1. The complainant claimed that he was shocked to receive an SMS regarding demand of EMI of Rs.9810/- for the loan taken by the complainant, which was due for 2.4.2015.  The complainant alleged that instead of promised rate of interest of 9% p.a., the Opposite Party implied 17% of interest per annum, which when was enquired and requested to reduce, was refused by the Opposite Party.  The complainant further disputed that in the Contract Details, the Initial Hire amount is mentioned as Rs.64,672/- instead of Rs.70,000/- paid by the complainant.  Claiming the acts of the OPs as unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, the complainant has asked for the following relieves:-

“1. a.   Adjust interest rate to 9% instead of 17%.

b.  Correction in initial hire amount to Rs.70,000/- instead of Rs.64,672/-

             Or,

c.  Cancellation of the loan without any cost and charges in lieu of a. & b.

         2.  Rs.25,000/- for mental harassment

         3.  Rs.11,000/- for litigation cost;”

 

7]       It is the defence of the OPs that the complainant himself admitted and singed the loan documents, accepting the terms & conditions of the same. They raised the plea that the contention of the complainant that his signatures were obtained by the OPs on blank papers, is not to be considered.  The OPs have denied that the documents of loan were executed on blank and the complainant had put his signature on the blank documents thereof.  They also took the plea that matter being of complicated nature needs to be relegated to the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.  Further they took the plea that for the reason that the matter pertains to rendition of accounts, thus is out of the purview of Consumer Protection Act. In view of the grounds mentioned above, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.  The OPs completely denied that it was agreed to the complainant to sanction loan at the rate of 9% p.a., as alleged and claimed that the loan facility granted by the OPs is based on its own applicable rate of interest and the rate of interest being charged by other banks and financial institutions, is not, in any manner related to the rate of interest being charged by the OPs. In addition, the OPs claimed that they released an amount of Rs.3.4 lacs in favour of the dealer in terms of loan agreement entered into between the complainant and OPs and the dispute regarding the excess amount that has been paid by the complainant to the dealer, is not concerned with the present OPs.

 

8]       From the submissions of the parties and from the through perusal of the record, it reveals that admittedly the complainant availed loan facility from the OPs for the purchase of Tata ACE H.T. High Deck vehicle. In nutshell, the grievance of the complainant is that the Opposite Parties wrongly implied 17% of rate of interest per annum instead of 9% interest per annum as agreed at the time of arranging the loan facility. Further claimed that he was not shown what rate of interest would be applicable for the loan availed by the complainant and he only came to know about the imposition of 17% p.a. interest from the demand made by the OPs of first EMI to be paid by the complainant.  To some extent, we agree with the contention of the complainant that he was not in the knowledge of accurate rate of interest likely to be charged by the OPs for the loan availed by him.

 

9]       The Contract Details document, placed on record as Ann.C-3, contains all the details regarding the vehicle as well as the invoice price of the vehicle in question including Initial Hire paid by the complainant and the loan sanctioned by the OPs but the document is silent about the rate of interest to be charged by the OPs in clear terms.  The OPs have also not placed on record any of the document whereby the complainant agreed to pay 17% interest per annum on the loan availed by him from the OPs.  The OPs have not placed on record even a single document to counter the allegations of the complainant.  No loan agreement or any sanction letter has been placed on record to prove the clear picture of the dispute.  It reveals that the exact rate of interest has been entirely left to the speculation of the loanee, as the same has not been specified in any document issued by the OPs.  Document Ann.C-3 issued by the OPs showing the Contract Details is misleading and points towards the unfair practice adopted by the OPs.

 

10]      Undoubtedly, the OPs have failed to prove that the complainant agreed to pay 17% interest per annum on the loan amount, but at the same time, the complainant has also failed to prove on record with any cogent and convincing evidence that the rate of interest @9% p.a. was agreed between the parties, as alleged.  So in such scenario, we cannot direct the OPs to reduce the rate of interest, as prayed for by the complainant, but certainly the OPs are liable for the deficiency in service and having indulged into unfair trade practice by concealing the material fact regarding the rate of interest to be charged in lieu of the loan availed by the complainant.  

 

11]      All the defences put forth by the OPs in their written statement are vague and does not relate to the actual dispute in particular. The OPs wrongly took the defence that the signatures of the complainant were not obtained on the blank papers, as alleged, whereas there is no such allegation in that regards in the present complaint.  The failure on the part of the OPs to prove their stand about the agreed rate of interest to the tune of 17% interest per annum in the absence of any loan agreement/document, amounts to deficiency in service. For such deficiency, the OPs are liable to pay compensation to the complainant, which is quantified to the tune of Rs.15,000/-.

 

12]      As regards the other grouse of the complainant that the Initial Hire amount has been wrongly mentioned in the Contract Details as Rs.64,672/- whereas he had paid Rs.70,000/-. No receipt of deposit of Rs.70,000/- by the complainant has been made part of the record, so no relief can be granted for the same.

 

13]      In view of the above discussion, we held the OPs deficient in rendering proper service and having indulged in unfair practice for misleading the complainant about the rate of interest to be charged. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite parties are jointly & severally directed as under:-

a]  To pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant due to their deficient services and indulgence into unfair practice;

 

c]  To pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 45 days of its receipt, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. on the above awarded amount as at sub-para [a] above from the date of filing this complaint till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

22^nd September., 2016                                                                                                                                        Sd/-  

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-  

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER