Kerala

Idukki

CC/92/2022

Paulson Joseph - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sundaram finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.K M Sanu

24 Apr 2023

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :6.6.2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the   24^th  day of  April,  2023

Present :

                   SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

CC NO.92/2022

     Between

Complainant                                       :         Paulson Joseph, S/o. Joseph,

                                                                   Mlakkuzhiyil House,

                                                                   Muttam P.O.,

                                                                   Thodupuzha.

(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

        And

Opposite Party                                    :        The Manager,

                                                                   Sundaram Finance Ltd.,

                                                                   Opp. Sree Sudheendra Medical Mission

                                                                             Hospital,

                                                                   Chittoor Road, Kacherippadi P.O.,

                                                                   Ernakulam.

(By Adv: Tinsmon Joseph)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This case originates from a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short).  Complainant’s case is briefly discussed hereunder :

 

Complainant had purchased a Toyota Fortuner car bearing Reg. No.KL-38C-9000 after availing a vehicle loan from opposite party, namely, Sundaram Finance Ltd., Kacherippadi branch represented by its manager, in 2013.  Loan amount was Rs.15,00,000/-.   In 2019, when only Rs.7 lakhs was remaining towards payment of loan, it was renewed for Rs.12 lakhs repayable in monthly equated instalments of Rs.37200/- for a further period of 60 months.  Though initially complainant was regularly repaying the loan, due to Covid 19 situation, complainant’s income had substantially decreased.  Some instalments were defaulted.  Even then, in March 2021, complainant had paid Rs.80,000/- towards loan.  However, opposite party had informed over phone that 5 instalments are due towards loan, that Rs.1,98,150 /- is to be paid.  Complainant submits that 5 instalments would only total to Ra.1,85,150/-.  Opposite party is demanding excessive / penal interest and unauthorized charges.  This is against                                                                                                      (cont….2)

• 2  -

the provisions of Interest Act.  Opposite party is threatening  complainant that his account will be treated as NPA and vehicle will be seized if instalment amount remaining due as claimed by them is not paid.  The vehicle is presently worth Rs.15 lakhs.  Loan period will end only by last of 2023.  Complainant is prepared to pay instalments due in a time bound manner.  However, if the opposite party takes possession of the vehicle in the meanwhile, he will be put to irreparable loss and injury.  Opposite party is not giving copy of agreement and account statement to the complainant.  Often receipts for remittance of instalments and money towards loan is not issued.  All these amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Complainant therefore prays for a direction against opposite party to recalculate loan amount after excluding excess charges, hidden charges and penal interest, for  compensation of Rs.1 lakh towards deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  He also seeks Rs.10000/- as litigation costs.

 

2. Opposite party had entered appearance and filed written version.  Its contentions are briefly discussed here under :

 

Complaint is not maintainable in law or upon facts.  Complainant had availed a vehicle loan in the year 2013 for the purchase of Toyota Fortuner car bearing Reg. No.KL-38-C-9000.  Loan was granted upon hypothecation of the vehicle.  A loan agreement was executed on 31.5.2019.  Loan amount was Rs.12,14,000/-.  Repayable amount was Rs.16,14,246/-in 48 months, inclusive of interest,.  First monthly instalment due on 17.6.2019 and the last one on 17.5.2023.  If at all any amount like Rs.80,000/- as mentioned in the complaint is paid by complainant, proper receipt has been given for  payment.  It is incorrect to say that the complainant was unable to remit monthly instalments owing to Covid 19 pandemic situation.  Complainant is liable to pay monthly instalments whether demanded or not.  However, he has been irregular in payment of instalments from initial periods itself.  Complainant was granted moratorium facility.  Moratorium facility only defers payment of loan and interest to a later period.  Interest for loan is not written off as benefits available under moratorium.  No excess / hidden charges or unauthorized interest was levied from  complainant.  Amount which can be levied in accordance with the agreement executed by  complainant alone is being recovered from him.  moratorium benefits were given for March, April and May of 2020.  As advised by RBI, repayment schedule for complainant’s loan as well as the residual tenure was shifted across the board by 3 months after moratorium period.  However, interest  continued to accrue on the outstanding portion of the complainant’s loan during moratorium period.  Original repayment term of 48 months intalments spread over from June 2019 till May 2023 was shifted till August 2023 and total loan amount repayable was revised as Rs.16,77,282/-.  Again as directed by RBI, 2nd moratorium was granted for the months of June, July, August of 2020.  As advised by RBI, interest continued to accrue on  outstanding loan amount during moratorium                                                                                                                      (cont….3)

• 3  -

period.  Thus repayment term of complainant’s account was shifted till August 2023 and total amount repayable was also revised as mentioned above.  As advised by RBI, interest continued to accrue on  outstanding loan amount during both moratorium periods spread over as monthly instalments payable.  Even after grant of moratorium benefits, there was no regular payment by complainant.  Upon grant of moratorium facility and restructuring of loan, total amount payable was revised as Rs.18,51,602/- repayable in 61 instalments, last instalment ending on 17.12.2024.  Though 169 days time was granted again, upon request by complainant after extended moratorium facility, to the shock and surprise of opposite party, complainant had instead of repaying the loan, as per revised instalments, filed this case suppressing material facts and making baseless allegations.  There was no harassment of complainant by officers of opposite party.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.  Loan agreement is executed in Chennai, remaining part of transaction had taken place at Ernakulam.  Hence this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  All the allegations are false and untrue.  Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for.  Complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory costs.

 

3. After filing of written version, case was posted for steps and thereafter for evidence.  Though repeated opportunities were given, complainant had not appeared or tendered evidence.  Initially case was taken for orders on 8.3.2023, when parties were absent and there was no representation from their side.  Subsequently, as per order in IA filed by counsel for opposite party, hearing was advanced and opposite party was heard.  Now the point which arise for consideration are : 

1)  Whether complaint is maintainable before this Commission ?

2)  Whether there was any deficiency in service ?

3)  Whether complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint ?

4)  Final order and costs ?

 

4.  Point Nos.1 to 3 are considered together :

          It cannot be disputed that opposite party being a private finance company is a service provider who is providing financial assistance to needy persons upon consideration.  There is no lack of inherent jurisdiction, considering allegations leveled against opposite party in  complaint.  Since the case is filed under the New Act, Commission, within whose local limits, complainant is residing is competent to entertain and dispose of the case even if opposite parties are not so residing or working for gain within  the territorial limits.  Hence we find that complaint is maintainable.

 

          According to complainant, excess / hidden charges and penal interest is being levied.  However, complainant has not demonstrated in the complaint even one instance of levying of excess or hidden charges or penal interest.  There is no evidence forthcoming to prove this allegation.  Complainant himself has admitted in the                                                                                                                  (cont…..4)

• 4  -

complaint that there was default in repayment of loan instalments.  He has no specific case of moratorium benefits being not granted to him.  From the pleadings and materials on record, we find that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.  Hence we find that complainant is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint.  Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

 

5.  Point No.4 :

 

          In the result, complaint is dismissed, under the circumstances, without cost.  Interim order granted in IA No.1/2022 is hereby vacated.  Parties are directed to take back extra sets of copies without delay. 

 

                    Pronounced by this Commission on this the    24^th   day of April, 2023

         

                                                                                                Sd/-

   SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

                             Sd/-

 SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

                        Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

Appendix : Nil.

 

 

                                                                                  Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

                                                                            ASSISTANT REGISTRAR