BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C.No: 143/2009 Filed on 15/06/2009
Dated : 30..09..2011
Complainant:
Kishore. C., S/o Chandran, T.C. 23/189(1), Vigneswara, Vilayasala, Fort – P.O., Thiruvananthapruam.
(By Advs. Emmanuel Chathenchira & Elizabeth Emmanuel)
Opposite party:
The Branch Manager, HSBC Bank, Personal Loan Section, Diamond Hills, Vellayambalam, Sasthamangalam – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 10.
(By Adv. K.G. Mohandas Pai)
This O.P having been heard on 16..08..2011, the Forum on 30..09..2011 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The facts of the case are as follows: The complainant is the permanent resident of the above said address and he is conducting a two wheeler workshop in the name and style “HONDA CARE” at Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram. The marketing executive of the opposite party approached the complainant at his workshop and offered financial assistances to start a spare part show room attached to his service centre. Accordingly complainant submitted an application for personal loan of Rs.50,000/- in the month of June, 2007 through opposite party's marketing executive. The opposite party granted an amount of Rs. 38,297/- on 3/7/2007 vide loan No.092261320542, after deducting an amount of Rs.11,703/- towards commission, service charge and documentation fee etc... The complainant received only Rs. 38,297/- and repaid Rs. 44,908/- as on April 2009. Recently the complainant is facing employment and financial problem and he intents to go abroad for a job accordingly he approached the opposite party requesting to the foreclosure of the personal loan Account. At that time they demanded huge amount for closing of loan account. Circumstances forced the complainant to issue a legal notice dated 2/5/2009 through his lawyer demanding to close the loan account by accepting the paid amount of Rs.44,968/- as final settlement of loan account. The legal notice was received by the opposite party on 5/5/2009 and so far no reply was issued and not taken any steps to settle the matter. The attitude of opposite party is illegal, illmotivated and not bonafide and against the provisions of banking rules and natural justice and also against the provisions of Reserve Bank Guidelines. Hence this complaint.
2. Opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. There is no consumer disputes between the parties herein, capable to be adjudicated by a Consumer Forum. The averments in para 3 & 4 are absolutely false and denied. The complainant approached opposite party for personal loan to a tune of Rs.50,000/-. However bank has granted a clean personal loan without any tangible security to a tune of Rs. 40,000/- only considering the income and repayment capacity of the complainant. The personal loan thus granted was attracting interest at a flat rate of 28%. The loan was repayable in equated monthly installments @ Rs. 2,044/- for a period of 36 months. Initially from every EMI a large portion will go towards interest and only a small portion will get credited in principal. Gradually, the process will reverse and towards end a large portion of EMI will be adjusted towards principal and small portion will go to interest. The complainant paid the EMI, with delay and default till 6th April, 2009. Thereafter the complainant defaulted the loan. An amount of Rs.22,150.18 was due from the complainant at that time towards principal. Interest also will accrue thereafter. The loan can be closed at any time on complying the terms and remitting the amount thus due, as worked out by the bank strictly as per the loan terms. Foreclosure is also possible as per the terms of granting loan. No huge amount is demanded as alleged. Only the balance outstanding in the account plus foreclosure charges alone need be paid by the complainant. There is no deficiency of service. Demanding amount due is not a deficiency of service. Initiating recovery proceedings from a chronic defaulter is not a deficiency of service. Complainant should adhere the legal terms of the contract. Complainant is not entitled to the relief sought. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The issues for consideration are:
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
Complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P4. DW1 has been examined on behalf of opposite party and Exts. D1 to D5 were marked on the part of the opposite party.
4. Points (i) & (ii): The grievance of the complainant is that, he had applied for a loan from the opposite party for Rs. 50,000/- and the bank granted only an amount of Rs. 38,297/- and that though the complainant had repaid Rs.44,908/-, the opposite party has claimed huge amount towards foreclosure of loan account which according to the complaint is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. According to the opposite party, the complainant had approached the Bank for personal loan of Rs. 50,000/- but considering the income and repayment capacity loan without any tangible security to a tune of Rs.40,000/- only was granted. That the complainant has deliberately delayed and defaulted payment from 2009 onwards.
5. We have gone through the documents produced by both parties and the evidence adduced by the complainant and the opposite party.
6. Complainant pleads that he had received only Rs.38,297/- and repaid Rs. 44,908/-. But as per Ext. D3, the complainant has authorised HSBC to collect Rs.523/- towards single premium for Personal Loan Protection Plan (PLPP) from his loan amount and to remit the same to Tata AIG life and has authorised opposite party to collect the service charge of Rs. 300/- for his loan amount. Further in Ext. D3, the Authorisation Schedule for HSBC consumer loan which bears the signature of the complainant, also evidences that 2% processing fee has to be paid by the complainant. Further the complainant alleges that he has repaid a total amount of Rs. 44,908/- to the opposite party as on April 2009. As per Ext. D3 the details of repayment has been mentioned. PW1 has deposed that 'ഈ loan – ന് പ്രതിമാസം അടയ്ക്കേണ്ട തുക Rs. 2,044/- രൂപയാണ് '. PW1 has further deposed that the number of installments for repayment was not told to him. But it is very strange to note that, a person availing a loan did not enquire about the number of installments for repayment. Further he has deposed that he does not know how many installments he has paid. The counsel for the opposite party put a question that 2% processing fee, 12.5% of processing fee and administration charges were levied from the complainant at the time of disbursement of loan for which he had deposed that he does not know it clearly might have recovered. Further the counsel for the opposite party had put a question that നിങ്ങള് എത്ര installment അടച്ചു (Q). April 2009 വരെ അടച്ചു, എത്ര ഗഡുക്കള് അടച്ചു എന്ന് ഇപ്പോള് ഓര്മ്മയില്ല (A).
7.Complainant has produced Ext. P1, which has been marked subject to proof, to evidence the payments he had made. But from Ext. P1 we cannot conclude regarding the payment of installment to the opposite party. Besides this complainant has not furnished any records to prove the payments he had made to the opposite party regarding this transaction. From Ext. P1 we cannot make out whether these details belong to that of the complainant's account. As per Ext. P1, installment amount of Rs. 2,044/- has been lastly paid on 2/4/2009. But when the complainant has once accepted the conditions in the agreement, he is bound by it. He is liable to pay foreclosure charges as per the agreement. Further Ext. D2 agreement has been signed by the complainant wherein the number of months for which EMI shall be payable has been specifically mentioned as 36 months. The deposition of the complainant that he does not know the said period leads us to conclude that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands. Once the agreement has been signed by the complainant, then he cannot go away from the terms and conditions therein admitted by him.
8. Considering the above facts, we are of the view that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case and the case is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of September, 2011.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD,
PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.
ad.
C.C.No: 143/2009
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : Kishore
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Copy of bank pass book
P2 : " advocate notice dated 2/5/2009
P3 : Original postal receipt dated 4/5/2009
P4 : Original Acknowledgement card
III. Opposite party's witness:
DW1 : Sandeep Krishnan
IV. Opposite party's documents:
D1 : Bio Data
D2 : Original personal loan agreement
D3 : Copy of disbursement advice
D4 : Copy of premium chart – personal loan protection plan.
D5 : Payment of installment amount.
PRESIDENT
