BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Gurvinder Singh son of Sh.Arjun Singh, r/o H.No.1151, Badal Colony, Zirakpur.

 …..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

Sunil Financiers, SCO No.391, 1^st floor, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh, through its proprietor Mohit Bansal.

Second Address :

1^st floor, Near Saini & Saini Electronics, Main Bazar, Patiala Chowk, Chandigarh – Ambala Road, Zirakpur.

                      ……Opposite Party

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                   PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL         MEMBER

         DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by:   Sh.Suresh Mankotia, Counsel for the             complainant.

Sh.Arun Kumar, Counsel for the OPs

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

         Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant took a personal loan from the OP on 11.5.2010 for Rs.20,000/- which was to be paid in 12 equal monthly installments of Rs.2370/- each.

         It is the allegation of the complainant that the complainant paid the regular EMIs till November,2010 but OP did not issue the receipts for the month of October and November, 2010 of Rs.2500/- each. The complainant was forced to hold back the next EMI. The OP threatened the complainant and his guarantor. The guarantor paid Rs.6000/- vide receipt dated 28.6.2011, Rs.5000/- vide receipt – Annexure C-9 and Rs.10,000/- vide receipt Annexure C-10 & C-11. Thereafter, the complainant paid the last installment of Rs.10,000/- vide receipt No.17044 dated 9.1.2012 and in this way, the complainant and his guarantor paid the total amount of Rs.50,510/- against Rs.28,440/-. The OP had overcharged from the complainant for a sum of Rs.22,010/-. Hence, this complaint. 

2]       OP filed the reply, wherein, it has been admitted that the complainant took the loan from the OP, which was to be paid in 12 equated monthly installments of Rs.2370/- each w.e.f. 15.6.2010 to 15.5.2011. The complainant paid the first installment in time and, thereafter, he failed to make the payment of 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th installments in time. The OP approached the guarantor for payment of balance installments and on the repeated requests, he paid a sum of Rs.6,000/- on 28.6.2011, Rs.5,000/- on 14.7.2011, Rs.2500/- on 25.9.2011 and Rs.7500/- on 24.10.2011 and thereafter, he refused to pay the balance amount.

         It has been further pleaded that on the repeated requests of the OP, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- vide receipt No.17049,  dated 9.1.2012 towards full and final payment. It has been denied that the OP overcharged the complainant by Rs.22,010/-. The complainant and his guarantor made the total payment of Rs.45,510/- which was inclusive of installments, late payment charges and visiting charges etc. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on its part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs has been made.  

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5]       The contention of the ld.Counsel for the complainant is that the complainant took loan of Rs.20,000/- from OP on 11.5.2010, repayable in 12 equated monthly installments of Rs.2370/- each.  It is also contended that the OP had charged the amount in excess, against the said loan, from the complainant and his guarantor, which was not refunded inspite of request.

6]       On the other hand, the ld.Counsel for the OPs argued that the OP did not overcharge from the complainant.  He also argued that the complainant and his guarantor made the total payment of Rs.45,510/- which was inclusive of installments, late payment charges and visiting charges. 

7]       We find merit in the contention of ld.Counsel for the complainant. It is admitted that the complainant was to pay installment of Rs.2370/- for 12 months only. Thus, the complainant was to pay a total sum of Rs.28,440/- against the said loan. But even then the OP had charged Rs.45,510/- from the complainant and his guarantor in excess by Rs.17,070/-, which amounts to gross deficiency in service as well as indulgence into unfair trade practice.

8]       The OP has not placed on record any loan agreement or terms & conditions of the loan, executed between the parties, to prove that it could charge the alleged miscellaneous charges such as late payment charges & visiting charges etc. nor such charges were intimated to the complainant.

9]       The OP in the reply at Para No.3 has stated that “As regards the full printed file which was got signed from the complainant and from the guarantor, the same was destroyed by the opposite party at the time of receiving the full and final payment from the complainant on 09.01.2012.” Such a plea, taken by the OP, raises serious doubts about their act & conduct. It appears that the OP intentionally destroyed the loan papers of complainant in order to conceal material fact from this Forum as well as to hide their deficient act.  Thus an adverse inference is drawn against the OP. 

10]      In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed.  The same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed to refund the excess amount of Rs.17,070/- to the complainant.  The OP is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.

         This order be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay Rs.27,070/- along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 31.1.2012 till its actual payment, besides paying litigation costs as aforesaid.

         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.