Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/433/2017

Manish Gulati - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Chola Mandalam Invt. & Fin. Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Siddhartha Yadav

04 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/433/2017
Date of Institution	:	31/05/2017
Date of Decision	:	04/06/2018

 

Manish Gulati, resident of H.No.1643, Sector 34/D, Chandigarh (U.T.)

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     The Managing Director, Chola Mandalam Invt. & Fin. Co. Ltd., S.C.O No.2423-24, Sector 22/C, 2^nd Floor, Chandigarh 160022.

2.     The Managing Director, Chola Mandalam Invt. & Fin. Co. Ltd., Dare House, 2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Parrys, Chennai 600001.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                     

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Sh. Mohit Sareen, Counsel for OPs.

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Allegations are, complainant was in need of money so he applied for a loan and took LAP (Loan against property) for an amount of Rs.34,24,816/- from a Non-Banking Financial Corporation (NBFC) namely Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited on 8.10.2015. Four installments were paid and thereafter he applied for closure of the loan account via pre-paying the current outstanding amount for obtaining NOC. The complainant received an acceptance letter for request of foreclosure of the current outstanding loan amount on 11.2.2016 wherein an amount of Rs.1,16,377.29 was imposed as pre-payment interest. On being requested, in view of the RBI circular dated 14.7.2014 foreclosure charges/pre-payment penalties were waived off. It is further the case, on being applied for, top-up/enhanced loan amount of Rs.1.6 crores was duly sanctioned and the loan amount was disbursed on 31.1.2016 for a period of 168 months only.  It is the case, complainant had paid 13 regular installments as EMIs from April 2016 to February 2016 for an amount of Rs.1,95,014/-. The complainant requested the officials of OP-1 to close his loan amount via pre paying the current outstanding amount for obtaining NOC. The complainant after going through the EMI payment schedule got issued a cheque dated 28.2.2017 amounting to Rs.1.56 crores for paying off the current outstanding amount to close his loan amount and for obtaining NOC.  To the utmost surprise of the complainant, officials of OP-1 got a foreclosure calculation letter dated 28.2.2017 mentioning the amount of Rs.7,15,967.93 as foreclosure charges @ 4% at O/S principal. It is the case, these were to be waived off in lieu of the RBI circular dated 14.7.2014. The complainant remained waiting for final calculation as promised, but, it was not done.  Hence the instructions were not followed for the waiver of the amount. Thus, the present consumer complaint for the refund of the amount paid as foreclosure charges i.e. Rs.7,12,088.41; to provide/ refund the amount of interest paid alongwith principal amount as EMI for the month of April 2017 i.e. Rs.1,52,638/-; to provide Rs.5,075/- charged as interest per day from the complainant for the period of 10 days alongwith compensation for harassment and mental agony. 
2.         OPs contested the consumer complaint and it is their case, material facts were suppressed as the complainant alongwith Radhika Gulati, Veena Gulati and Chandigarh Paper Stationery Mart were sanctioned a loan amounting to Rs.1,60,00,000/- for business needs and it was for commercial purpose and, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer.  It is also the case, RBI instructions, as referred, are not applicable in the case of the complainant since one of the co-borrowers is a proprietorship concern.  On these lines, the consumer complaint is sought to be defended. 
3.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4.         We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and gone through the record of the case.  After going through the record, our findings are as under:-
5.         At the outset, we shall refer to paragraph No.1 of the consumer complaint which is reproduced as under :-

“1.    That the complainant is a businessman who is presently running a paper mill under the name of ‘M/s Chandigarh Paper Stationery Mart’ and the premises of the same is located at Industrial Area-II, Chandigarh.”

Not only this, so much so, the body of the consumer complaint shows, complainant is a businessman and the said loan was taken for advancement of the business.  Not an iota of material had been referred in the consumer complaint that the complainant has taken this loan amount for self-employment to earn livelihood so as to cover him within the definition of a consumer.  It is a case of purely business transaction. OPs have also entered into a business transaction by advancing loan, therefore, the matter travels from one businessman to another and as per the pleadings of the parties, for a business purpose.  As such, the complainant is not a defined consumer and is liable to be non-petitioned.

6.         Per the averments made as well as the record produced, this is an account matter based upon the calculations and further reasons have been given RBI instructions do not apply or covers the case of the complainant as alongwith the complainant Radhika Gulati, Veena Gulati and Chandigarh Paper Stationery Mart, one of the co-borrowers, are not entitled for the relief of exemption of foreclosure charges.  In such a situation, reference was made to a case titled as Vishal Roadways Vs. Economic Traders, III (1998) CPJ 9 (NC) wherein it was held, question of rendition/ settlement of accounts cannot be decided in summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. So far as the arbitration clause is concerned, we record a finding, it is an additional remedy and this defence does not cut much ice.
7.         As referred supra, present dispute is an accounting matter and is also of commercial nature. No pleading was made it was meant for self-employment to earn livelihood.  Resultantly, we find no substance in the instant consumer complaint and the same is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  The complainant, however, is at liberty to take recourse to the remedy available in the civil court and may also seek exclusion of the period spent before this Forum i.e. from 31.5.2017 till date, if so required, for the purpose of Limitation Act.
8.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
04/06/2018	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	President