Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/98/2021

Mrs.S.Punitha,W/o.M.Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Sriram City Union Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

P.Jayaprakasam

28 Aug 2023

ORDER

Complaint presented on :26.02.2021

 Date of disposal            :28.08.2023

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

                PRESENT : THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                          :PRESIDENT

                                      TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                         : MEMBER-I

                                      THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA.,    :MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.98/2021

 

DATED MONDAY THE 28^th DAY OF AUGUST 2023

S.Punitha,

W/o.M.Kumar,

No.1/211-3, Vikramam Vellalar Street,

Vikramam, Pattukkottai,(TK)

Thanjavour,(Dt)

Tamil Nadu-614 903.

                                                                          …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

1. M/s.Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.,

Rep. by its General Manager,

No.123, Angappan Naicken Street,

Chennai-600 001.

 

2.M/s.Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.,

Rep. by its Branch Manager, No.315,

Main Road, Madukkur,

Pattukkottai, Thanjavour Dt,

Tamil Nadu-614 903.

                                                                                             …..Opposite Parties.

Counsel for Complainant                        : M/s.P.Jeyaprakasam and 3 others.

Counsel for opposite parties                     : M/s.K.V.Ananthakrushnan and 3 others.

 

 

ORDER

THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA.,    :MEMBER-II

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prays to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and a sum of Rs.50000/- towards mental agony, stress, suffering hardship and harassment and costs.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

The Complainant states that the complainant has purchased Yamaha Z-Ray Scooter bearing Reg. No. TN 49 BU 6512 and for the purchase of the said vehicle, the complainant approached 2nd opposite party which is 1st opposite party's branch office at Madukkur to get vehicle loan and the 2nd opposite party also agreed to grant vehicle loan. Accordingly, the complainant entered a loan agreement bearing No. MADUKTW1808290003. The complainant has paid initial payment a sum of Rs. 15,000/ to the seller/dealer as initial payment for purchase of vehicle. At the time of entering loan agreement, the 2nd opposite party obtained signature in the loan agreement and other papers. As per the agreement the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.2582/- per month as EMI and total equated monthly instalment is 24 months. Further the complainant states that 2nd opposite party obtained consent from the complainant for paying EMI through the complainant's bank account by ECS mode each and every month on or before 7th day of every month. The complainant states that at the time of entering loan agreement the 2nd opposite party has requested the complainant to pay first two EMI by way of cash payable at Madukkur branch and remaining EMI will be debited through the complainant's bank account No. SB.A/C.954976555 Indian Bank, Madukkur branch on ECS mode. Accordingly, the complainant has paid first two EMI by way of cash through the branch office the 2nd opposite party herein before the due date. The complainant states that in the month of December 2018 the 1st opposite party has not debited EMI through the complainant's account within due date, therefore the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party branch office and informed that the complainant has kept sufficient balance in her account. The 2nd opposite party informed that the complainant's signature in ECS not uploaded and advised complainant to pay all EMI through branch office or Sriram City App for which the opposite parties sent message to the complainant and the complainant paid the EMI for the month of December 2018 by way of cash. The complainant states that as per instruction of 2nd opposite party, the complainant has paid the EMI by way of cash a sum of Rs. 2582 on 02.01.2019 for the month of January 2019, on 05.02.2019 for the month of February 2019 and on 05.03.2019 for the month of March 2019 and obtained receipt for the same from 2nd opposite party. Even after paying the EMI within due date at the 2nd opposite party herein, the opposite parties have claimed EMI through ECS also for the same payment and claimed cheques bouncing charges which is clearly proved that the opposite parties is making double claim for single EMI by committing fraud upon the complainant for wrongful gain and it amounts to unfair trade practice and the 1st and 2nd opposite parties act is illegal and the breach of contract. The complainant also sent a letter dated 11.04.2019 addressed to the 1st opposite party for the same. In these circumstances the opposite party made phone call to the complainant to debit the EMI through ECS mode and thereafter the complainant has paid each and every EMI through her bank account without any default. The complainant states that due to COVID-19 pandemic and closure of all government and private institutions and due to nationwide lock-down, the complainant is not in a position to move and to pay the EMI for the month of April, May and June 2020 within due date and even during lock-down extension, the complainant has paid the EMI for the month of July 2020 and August 2020 within due date. The complainant has to pay the 4 EMI for the month of April, May, June (lock-town period) and September 2020. In these circumstances the complainant has received a letter dated 06.09.2020 on 22.09.2020 from the 2nd opposite party stating that the complainant have to pay 4 EMI a sum of Rs.10320/- by availing the moratorium. The complainant states that on receipt of the said letter, the complainant has paid the EMI in the month of October 2020 directly to 2nd opposite party and the remaining 3 EMI has paid through the complainant's bank account. Hence the complainant has paid 24 month EMI as per loan agreement. The complainant has approached home branch office at 2nd opposite party to return the original RC book and cancellation of hypothecation of loan agreement enabling the complainant to cancel the hypothecation before the RTO at Pattukkottai. Meanwhile, the 2nd opposite party at Madukkur branch claimed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000 for cheque bouncing charges and 400 rupees for delay payment during COVID -19(April- to June 2020) but never issued any statement account. The complainant states that the opposite parties willfully and deliberately claimed the EMI through ECS for the month of April, May and June 2020 and got bounced for want of sufficient funds. The opposite party totally violated the Govt.of India, Ministry of finance and RBI direction, invoked the ECS facilities against the complainant and got bounced for which the opposite party company claimed cheque bouncing charges a sum of Rs.500/ each month during covid-19 pandemic. The complainant states that further the complainant received message directing the complainant to keep sufficient balance in the account to pay a sum of Rs.1153/- on EMI according to their whims and fancy. It is not out of the place to mention that the complainant has paid all EMI (24 months) as per loan agreement. Now opposite parties claiming EMI that too without any agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties are only harassing the complainant to achieve their illegal goal. Still the 2nd opposite party made frequent unnecessary phone call threatened the complainant to pay the EMI at the rate of 1153/-. The complainant is not liable for any claim by the 1st opposite party or 2nd opposite party after closing of EMI 24 months as per loan agreement. The complainant states that Complainant had issued Legal notice on 02.02.2021 to the 1st Opposite Party herein to return the RC Book and cancellation of hypothecation of loan agreement. The 1st opposite party has received the legal notice and they never come forward to return vehicle RC book nor sent any suitable reply for the same. The complainant states that the opposite parties had committed gross deficiency in service, by non return of RC Book and cancellation of hypothecation of loan agreement, even after paid all EMI as per loan agreement. The complainant states that the opposite parties are clearly committed the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence this complaint.

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

The Opposite Parties deny all the allegations and averments contained in the Complaint as false, unsustainable and devoid of merits except those that are specifically admitted hereunder and put Complainant to the strict proof of the rest.Without going into the merits of the case, the Opposite Parties submit that the present complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer forum, since the parties entered into an enterprises agreement agreeing to refer any dispute between the lender and the borrower under Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 only. Hence filing of the present Complaint is breach of contract and against statute.  The complainant availed the loan with the opposite party branch office at Madukkur in Thanjavur District. The loan documents were executed and the payment was disbursed at Madukkur. The filing of complaint before Consumer Forum at Chennai is not maintainable. Hence, the complaint is liable to be returned on territorial jurisdiction to be presented before proper Forum having jurisdiction.The Opposite Parties M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd is a Non-Banking Finance company Registered under companies Act 1956 and doing financial business like loan to small and medium entrepreneurs, Loan for purchasing new car & Two wheeler loan, Personal Loan and loan to used car & two wheeler. The interest rate chargeable in respect of loan to the borrowers is fixed and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement executed between the borrowers and our company under a contract within the guidelines of RBI. During 2018, the complainant approached the 2nd Opposite Party to provide financial assistance for purchasing a new two wheeler Yamahaa Z Ray Scooter. For obtaining the loan, the complainant executed necessary documents viz. loan agreement, pronote, RTO forms and other necessary in our favour and also furnished address proof, ID proof, and income proof for processing the loan. Based on the above documents, the loan was sanctioned to the complainant for a sum of Rs.48403/- on 29.08.2018 under loan Agreement No.MADUKTW18090003. The complainant purchased a new two wheeler bearing Registration no. TN 49BU 6512. As per the agreed terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the complainant has to repay the loan amount of Rs.48,403/- together with the interest of Rs.14,718/- in all totaling to Rs.63,121/- to the opposite party in 24 equated monthly installments at the rate of Rs 2582/- p.m. The first installment commencing from 7.10.2018 and the last EMI ending on 07.09.2020. As per Schedule I clause 7 of the loan agreement, in the event of default, the complainant should pay a sum of Rs.500/- per cheque return and overdue charges with interest at the rate of Rs.36% p.a on the defaulted amount till realization.At the time of availing the loan, the complainant agreed to repay the loan amount with interest by Electronic Clearing Service (ECS). The complainant was asked to pay the first 2 EMI through cash payment, since time will take to process the ECS mandate. From 4th installments onwards, the ECS were presented on the respective due date in the complainant's bank account. Therefore, the allegations made in para 3, 4 & 5 of the complaint are false and incorrect. After availing the loan, the complainant paid the EMI upto 07-03-2020. For the EMI due on 07.01.2019, 07.02.2019 and 07.03.2019, the complainant made cash payment on 02-01-2019, 05-02-2019 05-03-2019. The Opposite Parties could not stop the ECS process, since the cash payments wore very close to the EMI dates. Hence the ECS presentation is neither willful or wanton and the opposite parties have no intention to claim double payment as alleged in the complaint. In view of National Lockdown for Covid -19, as per RBI guideline the opposite parties granted moratorium to the complainant's loan account for the EMI due on 07.05.2020 , 07.06.2020,07.07.2020, and 07.08.2020. Consequently, the complainant's repayment schedule stands revised from 07.09.2020 to 07.02.2021 and the EMI has to be paid at the same rate of Rs.2,582/- upto 07.01.2021 and the last Installment to be paid on 07.02.2021 at Rs.1153/-.As per RBI guidelines an ex-gratia amount of Rs.185/- was also given credit to the complainant's loan account on 05.11.2020. Only on payment as per revised loan schedule, complainant's loan account will be closed and the complainant is eligible to get the original RC book and No Due Certificate. As per the revised loan schedule the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.1153/- towards last EMI, Rs.2000/- for cheque dishonour charges and overdue interest of Rs.395/-in all totaling Rs.3,582/- payable under the above loan account. Even after the loan was terminated on 07.02.2021, the complainant failed to discharge his loan liability.  In the above circumstances the complainant issued a legal notice dated 02.02.2021 through JP & Associates requesting to return the original RC book along with form 35 to revoke the hypothecation endorsement. The opposite party issued a reply dt 04.03.2021 stating that on the payment of Rs.3361/- the original documents will be returned without any delay. The complainant did not settle the loan account and sent a rejoinder dated 20.08.2021. The opposite party sent a reply dated 15.09.2021 to the said rejoinder.  The allegation made in para 6,7,8 & 9 of the complainant is false and frivolous. During the lockdown period the opposite parties did not function and hence did make demand on any customers to pay the EMI amount. To facilitate the customer, the opposite party granted a moratorium to the complainant’s loan account as per the RBI guidelines. But, for moratorium relief granted as per RBI guideline, the complainant will be categorized as a defaulter, besides the loan account would reflected in the CIBIL. Hence moratorium granted is for the benefit of the complainant. The opposite parties did not charge any interest for late payment and cheque bouncing charges. As per the Supreme Court Judgment dated 23rd March 2021 no banks/NBFC should collect interest on interest and compound interest for the moratorium period but can collect simple interest for those periods. The averments made in para 10,11,12,13 & 14 are repetition and answered in earlier paragraphs. As per RBI direction those who want to avail moratorium can send either mail or text Message to the respective bankers. Based on guidelines the opposite party granted the facility to the complainant.The opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled to claim the original RC book and also revocation of hypothecation endorsement only on discharge of the entire loan liability. Hence the relief sought in the complaint is breach of contract.The complainant is a defaulter in repayment of the loan amount. The reschedule loan tenure was terminated on 07-02-2021. The complainant settled the loan account only on (28-09-2021) after a period of 8 months. After filing the complaint, the complainant sent a demand draft No.261977 dated 28.09.2021 for a sum of Rs.3,600/- in favour of the opposite party by courier. The said amount was credited to the opposite party account and settlement entry was also marked to the complainant's loan account on 16-10-2021. Consequently, the original RC book, No Due Certificate and form 35 for lifting the HP endorsement were handed over to the complainant on 25-10-2021 under due acknowledgement. Therefore, the relief claimed in the complaint has become infructuous. The complainant has simultaneously filed  O.S. No. 2459 of 2021 for the relief of Injunction not to seize the vehicle. The complainant has suppressed material facts and not come to the Forum with clean hands. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed in the complaint. If, so to what extent?

The complainant had filed proof affidavit, written arguments and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 were marked on his side.The opposite parties have filed written version, proof affidavit, written arguments and documents Ex.B1 to B7 were marked on their side.Oral argument of the learned counsel for opposite parties also heard.

4. Point No.1:-

The admitted fact of the complaint is that complainant had approached 2^nd opposite party for availing vehicle loan and obtained vehicle loan for a sum of Rs.48,403/- by entering into loan agreement which is repayable in EMI of Rs.2,582/- for 24 months from 07.10.2018 to 07.09.2020.  It is also an admitted fact that EMI shall be payable through ECS mode and the opposite party advised the complainant to pay first two instalments by cash with the reason to have time for processing the ECS mandate and accordingly the complainant had paid the said two EMIs.

5. The opposite parties contended that the complaint is not maintainable since the parties entered into an enterprises agreement agreeing to refer any dispute between lender and the borrower under Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 only and hence this complaint is breach of contract and against statute.  Whereas the complainant contended that Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation enacted to give additional remedy to settlement of dispute to the parties, the same cannot be taken away by section 8 of Arbitration Act and section 2(3) of Arbitration Act expressly state Arbitration Act shall not affect any other law time being in force in which certain dispute may not refer to the Arbitration.   In this regard the complainant relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in RP No.2629-2630 of 2018, Emaar MGF Land Limited Vs Aftab Singh and based on this judgement the contention of the opposite parties is not maintainable.

6. The complainant alleged that on seeing that December 2018 instalment was not debited from his account by way of ECS by the 1^st opposite party inspite of sufficient balance in the account, the complainant had approached the 2nd opposite party who informed that complainant signature in ECS was not uploaded and advised to pay all EMIs through branch office or Sriram City App for which the opposite parties had sent message to complainant to pay December 2018 EMI by way of cash.  As advised by the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant had paid EMIs for months of Dec. 18, Jan, Feb. and March 2019 before the due date.  The complainant alleged that even after paying the EMIs before due date, the opposite parties claimed EMIs through ECSs and also claimed cheque bouncing charges thus making double claim for EMIs which is illegal and breach of contract.  When the complainant sent a letter to 1^st opposite party to regularise the mode of payment, waiving of cheque bouncing charges and sought copies of loan agreement, RC Book, and other related papers but the opposite party failed to do the same except regularising the mode of payment. 

7. The opposite parties contended that admittedly the complainant had paid the instalments of Jan, Feb. and March 2019 EMIs by cash, the opposite party could not stop ECS process since the cash payments were very close to the EMI dates and further the ECS was given by the complainant and complainant alone has the authority to stop the ECS and hence the action of claiming ECS for the above months were not wilful or wanton.  Further the opposite parties contended that as per schedule I clause 7 of the loan agreement, in the event of default, the complainant should pay a sum of Rs.500/- per cheque return and overdue charges with interest @ 36% p.a. on the defaulted amount till realization. 

8. Perused the averments of both sides and documents.  Oral argument of learned counsel for opposite parties also heard.  It is observed from Ex.A1 that complainant had paid a sum EMI of Rs.2582/- for the month of Oct. 2018.  The complainant had paid EMI for the months of Dec. 2018 on 15.12.2018, Jan. 2019 on 02.01.2019, Feb. 2019 on 05.02.2019 and March 2019 on 05.03.2019 which is evidenced from Ex.A2.  According to averment of opposite parties the date of payment for EMI was 7^th of every month.  Admittedly the opposite parties initially advised the complainant to pay only the 1^st and 2^nd instalments of EMIs by cash and the same were paid by the complainant.  Hence the complainant waited for the ECS deduction for the month of Dec. 2018 but when it was not debited from his account, the complainant on his own approached the 2^nd opposite party to know the reason and during that time the 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that his signature in ECS was not uploaded and advised the complainant to pay the EMIs through branch office or Sriram App and further the opposite parties had sent message to the complainant stating that they have not presented December EMI cheque in Bank and advised to pay cash or send SMS to send their executive to collect cash which is evidenced from Ex.A3 which is not disputed by the opposite parties.  The opposite parties in their averments nowhere averred about the non-presentation of cheque for the month of Dec. 2018 or for the payment made on 15.12.2018 by the complainant as per Ex.A2.   It is observed from Ex.A2, that the complainant had made payment for EMIs on or before 7^th of every month for the months of Jan, Feb and March 2019 as observed in Ex.A2 and the opposite parties also sent a message to complainant informing that cheque for the month of Feb. 2019 also not presented and advised to pay cash or for collection through executive as observed from Ex.A3.  Admittedly the opposite parties claimed the EMIs through ECS for the months of Jan,, Feb and March 2019 eventhough the said EMIs were paid by the complainant before the due date but contended that the payment dates and due dates were very close and the ECS can be stopped only by complainant alone. In such case how the opposite parties had sent a message to complainant as per Ex.A3 that Feb.2019 EMI cheque was not presented in the bank which is contradictory to the averment made by opposite parties.  Further the opposite parties have not furnished the statement of loan schedule and payment details and the dates of ECS request generated every month.   The opposite parties had charged cheque return charges as per loan agreement which is also not filed and failed to furnish the detail of the months for which the cheques were returned and overdue charges.  When the complainant had sent a letter dated 11.04.2019 which is marked as Ex.A4 to 1^st opposite party requesting for waiving of cheque return charges, copy of loan agreement, copy of RC book and other related papers besides to regularise the payment mode.  But the opposite parties neither responded nor furnished the copies of documents sought by complainant and only the mode of payment was regularised.  For no fault on complainant who had paid the EMIs before the due date, the opposite parties made another claim through ECS and cheque return charges after knowing the receipt of the EMIs is a gross negligence and unfair trade practice committed by opposite parties and their contention in this regard is not maintainable.

9. The complainant further alleged that during the COVID-19 lockdown the complainant was not in a position to move and pay the EMI for the months of April, June and July 2020 but paid the EMIs for the month of July and August 2019.  Only for four months i.e. April, May, June and September 2020 the EMIs were pending.  In the meanwhile the opposite parties had sent an letter dated 06.09.2020 which is marked as Ex.A6 seeking to pay the pending four EMIs due to  moratorium to maintain the CIBIL score and immediately the complainant had paid one EMI in the month of Oct.2020 and the balance three EMIs through bank account and thus completed the entire 24 EMIs.  When the complainant demanded cancellation of hypothecation of loan agreement the 2^nd opposite party insisted a sum of Rs.4,000/- for cheque bouncing charges and Rs.400/- for delay payment during COVID 19 moratorium period but has failed to provide any statement in this regard.  Further the opposite parties had sent a message to pay a sum of Rs.1153/- as due amount and only after payment of Rs.3,600/- the opposite parties had issued NOC which the complainant alleged that the actions of the opposite parties are arbitrary, unilateral and against guidelines of RBI and Government of India and also breach of loan agreement. 

10. The opposite parties contended that as per RBI guidelines the opposite parties had granted moratorium to the complainant’s loan account for the EMI due on 07.05.2020, 07.06.2020, 07.07.2020 and 07.08.2020 and hence repayment schedule was revised from 07.09.2020 to 07.02.2021 and the EMI of Rs.2,582/- upto 07.01.2021 and the last instalment of Rs.1,153/- to be paid on 07.02.2021.  It is an admitted fact on both sides that the total instalments of loan were only 24, whereas the opposite parties revised schedule for 25 installments.  The opposite parties in their reply notice marked as Ex.A10, wherein it is clearly mentioned that loan tenure was revised from 24 to 29 months to end on 07.02.2021.  When the moratorium given to complainant was for four months only and in that case how the opposite parties have increased the loan tenure for 5 more months on their own without any prior intimation to the complainant and demanding the last EMI amount of Rs.1,153/- is not properly explained.  It is also evident from Ex.A10 that opposite parties demanded a sum of Rs.3,361/- towards interest on principal for the extended period in view of moratorium and charges for delay payment and return of cheque and only on payment of Rs.3,600/- by complainant as noted in Ex.B5, the opposite parties had issued NOC.  It is pertinent to mention that Reserve Bank of India in its circular No.  RBI/2019-20/186 DOR.No.BP.BC.47/21.04.048/2019-20 March 27, 2020and RBI/2019-20/244 DOR.No.BP.BC.71/21.04.048/2019-20 May 23, 2020 have granted moratorium period upto 31^st August 2020 and the extract of their circular dated March 27, 2020 is given below :

(i) Rescheduling of Payments – Term Loans and Working Capital Facilities

2. In respect of all term loans (including agricultural term loans, retail and crop loans), all commercial banks (including regional rural banks, small finance banks and local area banks), co-operative banks, all-India Financial Institutions, and NBFCs (including housing finance companies) (“lending institutions”) are permitted to grant a moratorium of three months on payment of all instalments1 falling due between March 1, 2020 and May 31, 2020. The repayment schedule for such loans as also the residual tenor, will be shifted across the board by three months after the moratorium period. Interest shall continue to accrue on the outstanding portion of the term loans during the moratorium period.

 

7. The rescheduling of payments, including interest, will not qualify as a default for the purposes of supervisory reporting and reporting to Credit Information Companies (CICs) by the lending institutions. CICs shall ensure that the actions taken by lending institutions pursuant to the above announcements do not adversely impact the credit history of the beneficiaries.  The moratorium period was again extended by RBI by its circular No. RBI/2019-20/244 DOR.No.BP.BC.71/21.04.048/2019-20 May 23, 2020upto 31 August 2020.  Further the RBI circular No. RBI/2021-22/17 DOR.STR.REC.4/21.04.048/2021-22 April 7, 2021 states:

Asset Classification and Income Recognition following the expiry of Covid-19 regulatory package

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has pronounced its judgement in the matter of Small-Scale Industrial Manufacturers Association vs UOI &Ors. and other connected matters on March 23, 2021. In this connection, it is advised hereunder:

I. Refund/adjustment of ‘interest on interest’

2. All lending institutions shall immediately put in place a Board-approved policy to refund/adjust the ‘interest on interest’ charged to the borrowers during the moratorium period, i.e. March 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020 in conformity with the above judgement. In order to ensure that the above judgement is implemented uniformly in letter and spirit by all lending institutions, methodology for calculation of the amount to be refunded/adjusted for different facilities shall be finalised by the Indian Banks Association (IBA) in consultation with other industry participants/bodies, which shall be adopted by all lending institutions.

3. The above reliefs shall be applicable to all borrowers, including those who had availed of working capital facilities during the moratorium period, irrespective of whether moratorium had been fully or partially availed, or not availed, in terms of the circulars DOR.No.BP.BC.47/21.04.048/2019-20 dated March 27, 2020 and DOR.No.BP.BC.71/21.04.048/2019-20 dated May 23, 2020 (“Covid-19 Regulatory Package”).

11. Though the opposite parties contended that they had credited ex-gratia amount of Rs.185/- as per RBI guidelines and no interest or cheque bouncing charges were charged for the same and further contended that as per RBI guidelines moratorium was granted but the complainant will be categorized as a defaulter, besides the loan account would be reflected in the CIBIL but the above contentions are against the RBI guidelines and the opposite parties had issued a letter to complainant on 06.09.2020 marked as Ex.A6 asking the complainant to pay the balance four instalments to avoid defaulter status and reflecting in  CIBIL score and further instead of rescheduling the loan tenure for four months,  they had rescheduled and increased one instalment of EMI which is totally against the RBI guidelines.  Further as per the RBI circulars and judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in W.P. No.476 of 2020 in Small Scale Industrial Manufacturers Association Vs Union of India and further guidelines issued by RBI, the complainant is not a defaulter and not required to pay penal interest but the opposite parties had collected a sum of Rs.3,600/- from complainant for issuing NOC is arbitrary and against RBI guidelines issued during COVID-19.  Just because the complainant has paid Rs.3600/- under Ex.B5 and his RC book and NOC was issued by the opposite party on 16.10.2021 which is after filing of the complaint it cannot be contended that the complainant admitted his liability and paid that amount but on the contrary the imposing of penal interest and charges for dishonor of cheque by the opposite parties and the demand made by the opposite party asking the complainant to pay Rs.3361/- for returning the RC book in clear violation of RBI circulars amount to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  It is found that the Civil suit filed by the complainant in OS.No.2459/2021 is for a different relief and it no way affects the relief claimed in the present complaint.

12. From the above facts it is evident that opposite parties had claimed EMIs through ECS for the payments made by the complainant before due date and not intimating the complainant about non-presenting cheque for EMIs and further charged cheque return charges, increasing the EMI instalments which amounts to unfair trade practice and therefore it is concluded that the actions of the opposite parties caused deficiency in service.   Point No.1 answered accordingly.

13. Point No.2.

            Based on findings given to the Point.No.1 since there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties, the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.30000/- towards deficiency in service and mental agony and also pay Rs.5000/- towards cost of complaint.  Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are directed to pay jointly and severally to the complainant sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of complaint. The above amount shall be paid to the Complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the above said amount shall carry 9%interest from the date of order to till the date of payment.

Dictated by the Member-II to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 28^th day of August 2023.

 

MEMBER  I               MEMBER  II                                   PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	24.08.2018	Copy of receipt for initial payment by the complainant to seller/dealer.
Ex.A2		Copy of receipts for EMI paid to the 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A3		Copy of message sent by the opposite party.
Ex.A4	11.04.2019	Copy of letter given by the complainant to the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A5	13.04.2019	Copy of acknowledgement card.
Ex.A6	06.09.2020	Copy of reminder letter by 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A7	02.02.2021	Copy of legal notice to the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A8		Copy of acknowledgement card.
Ex.A9		Copy of message by the opposite parties.
Ex.A10	04.03.2021	Copy of reply notice by the opposite parties.
Ex.A11	20.08.2021	Legal notice issued by the complaint with acknowledgement card.
Ex.A12	15.09.2021	Reply notice issued by the opposite parties.
Ex.A13	27.09.2021	Letter issued by the complainant with DD and challan.
Ex.A14		Plaint copy of O.S.No.2459/2021

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

Ex.B1	02.02.2021	Legal notice to complainant to opposite parties.
Ex.B2	04.03.2021	Reply notice by opposite parties to the complainant’s council.
Ex.B3	15.09.2021	Reply to rejoinder by opposite parties.
Ex.B4	20.06.2021	2nd rejoinder by complainant.
Ex.B5	28.09.2021	DD for Rs.3600/-
Ex.B6	25.10.2021	Letter by complainant acknowledgement receipt of original RC Book.
Ex.B7	16.10.2021	NOC issued by the opposite party.

 

MEMBER  I               MEMBER  II                                   PRESIDENT