National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. L & T Finance Limited vs Deelip Laxman Nitnaware & Anr. on 19 December, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 272 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 02/11/2015 in Appeal No. 186/2014 of the State Commission Maharashtra) 1. M/S. L & T FINANCE LIMITED ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DEELIP LAXMAN NITNAWARE & ANR. ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,MEMBER
For the Petitioner : For the Petitioner
(Finance Co.)
:
Mr. Puneet Bajaj , Advocate For the Respondent : For the Legal Heirs of Respondent No. 1
(Complainant)
:
Mr. J.T. Bansode , Advocate
For the Respondent No. 2
(Dealer)
:
ex parte
Dated : 19 Dec 2019 ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Dinesh Singh, Member
1. We heard the learned Counsel for the Finance Co., the Petitioner herein, and perused the material on record.
The request for adjournment made by the learned proxy counsel for the legal heirs of the Complainant, the Respondent No. 1 herein, was politely declined.
The Dealer, the Respondent No. 2 herein, has been proceeded against ex parte.
2. We perused the entire material on record, including inter alia specifically the Order dated 28.02.2014 of the District Forum and the impugned Order dated 02.11.2015 of the State Commission.
3. The brief facts of the case have been succinctly articulated by the State Commission in para 2 of its Order dated 02.11.2015, which are as below:
"2. Facts in nutshell are as under:
"Complainant Dilip Laxman Nitnaware resident of Paithan Tq. Paithan Dist. Aurangabad had purchased the tractor of new Holland Company by respondent No. 1 M/s Vaishnav Tractors Agency Aurangabad. The engine No. of said tractor was 07477 N and Chasis No. 2137235. Complainant also purchased one trolley with a said tractor. Price of said tractor was Rs. 5,85,000/- which was paid by the complainant on 16.07.2010 by availing finance from respondent No. 2 L & T Finance Co. Ltd., Aurangabad. Complainant had availed the loan of Rs. 3,50,000/-. At that time complainant deposited 10 blank cheques of Sr. Nos. 538581 to 538590. Every time complainant was depositing the loan installment regularly, even then appellant issued two cheques for hearing and after bouncing of cheque penal charges were shown in the name of complainant. After some days complainant was in position to repay the double loan amount. Therefore he approached to respondent and requested to give details about arrears of loan. Accordingly appellant gave him fore-closer / stimulation report dated 05.09.2012. As per said report complainant was required to pay net closer amount of Rs. 2,74,178/-. After receiving some letter complainant deposited said amount on 07.09.2012 and claimed the blank cheques and NOC, R.C. Book etc. from the appellant. But said documents were not returned by the appellant. Therefore complainant issued letter dated 07.09.2012, 25.09.2012 and 01.10.2012, but his letters were neither responded nor any action was taken by the respondent. Therefore complainant approached to Forum by claiming compensation of Rs. 14,74,762/- in total."
[N.B.: Evidently, "hearing", highlighted above, is a typographical error; it should read "clearing".]
4. The District Forum heard all the parties, appraised the evidence, and, vide its Order dated 28.02.2014, allowed the Complaint against the Finance Co.
We note the appraisal made, and the Award passed, by the District Forum, which are as below:
- - -
"Complainant ought to have repay loan in 48 months but complainant repaid the loan before 26 months, hence it is responsibility of Resp. No. 2 to give details of accounts. However, from the documents filed by Resp. No. 2 this is not substantiated. On the loan sanction letter there is no mention of rate of interest; this cannot be treated as mistake by inadvertence. Irrelevant and exorbitant charging of interest is the only motive. Resp. has not applied by sort of transparency; this is seen from the documents of Respondent. Hence deficiency in service is apparent on the part of Respondent.
"In generality, nationalized bank charges minimum interest rate for agricultural purposes (10 to 13 %). Resp. is private company hence it is expected that, they charge some more rate. If company prepares statement of accounts for its customers in the following format, it can give appropriate information -
Date
Narration
Debit amount
Credit amount
Balance
1
2
3
4
5
"While charging interest, in column No. 2 Respondent should mention rate of interest (18 %) and should show penal interest separately.
"Once customer has closed loan account, whether he demands or not demand, his documents must be returned, much less, it is the duty of Respondent. In the instant case, complainant had written in all 6 letters to Resp. No. 2 for return of original papers of tractor, RC book, blank cheques, 7/12 extract etc. Resp. only returned NOC but not other documents. Substantial proof has been brought on record to show that, Resp. 2 had taken 10 blank cheques from complainant. After close of account and even after making demand the signed cheques were not returned, it is apparent to understand the intention behind not returning the signed cheques.
"We have no hesitation to draw conclusion that Resp. No. 2 has committed serious nature of 'deficiency in service', hence this Forum proceed to pass following order -
ORDER
"1. Resp. No. 2 is directed to supply statement of account to complainant in the above format. On the balance amount (not on full loan amount) by charging interest @ 18 %p.a and further directed to return the excess amount to complainant.
"2. Resp. No. 2 is directed to return the RC book and 9 blank cheques to complainant. Resp. 2 further directed to delete the charge on RC book with their own expenses.
"3. Resp. No. 2 has not maintained transparency in dealing with complainant as such committed serious 'deficiency in service' hence Resp. 2 is saddled with costs of Rs. 10,000 /- moreover Rs. 1000/- towards cost of litigation which shall be payable by bank D.D. "4. Resp. No. 2 is directed to write detailed letter by Regd. Post to communicate to complainant that, it has complied with above order. Further directed to submit copy of statement of account and copy of this letter before this Forum.
"5. Resp. No. 2 is directed to make compliance of this order within 30 days."
(extracts from the District Forum's Order) (as per the translated copy furnished by the Petitioner Finance Co.)
5. The Finance Co. filed Appeal under Section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Act 1986 before the State Commission, being F.A. No. 186 of 2014.
6. The State Commission heard the Finance Co. and the Complainant, appraised the evidence, and, vide its Order dated 02.11.2015, dismissed the Appeal.
We note the appraisal made, and the order passed, by the State Commission, which are as below:
"5. After hearing both the parties District Forum allowing complaint directed respondent No. 2 to supply the account extract as per directions of Forum and to refund the extra amount with 18 % interest which was received by the appellant. Forum also directed respondent No. 2 to return the R.C. Book as well as blank cheques and hypothecation is directed to be removed from R.C. Book. Forum directed appellant to pay Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony Rs. 1000/- for cost of complaint.
"6. Dissatisfied with the said judgement and order original respondent No. 2 came in appeal. Adv. Gangakhedkar appeared for appellant. Adv. Bansode appeared for respondent No. 1. None appeared for respondent No. 2 though duly served. Therefore appeal proceeded ex parte against respondent No. 2. It is submitted by Adv. Gangakhedkar that complainant had availed the loan for commercial purpose i.e for purchase of tractor. Therefore complaint is not maintainable. It is further submitted by Adv. Gangakhedkar that complainant obtained the loan but was not regular in repaying the loan amount. Therefore penal charges were recovered from the complainant. While obtaining the loan complainant agreed to file the terms and conditions of the agreement and therefore as he failed to repay the loan as per scheduled of repayment penal charges were recovered. It is further submitted by Adv. Gangakhedkar that as complainant was in arrears even after the forecloser his original documents were not returned. But District Forum by ignoring the said fact directed the appellant to return the original documents and extract of account illegally. Hence appeal be allowed by quashing the said order.
"7. Adv. Bansode appearing for respondent Nos. 1/ original complainant submitted that complainant had availed the loan and as soon as he was in position to repay the total loan he approached to appellant finance company and asked for the details of forecloser system. Accordingly details were supplied to the complainant and complainant had deposited Rs. 2,74,178 /- on 07.09.2012 . But it was found at that time that appellant had recovered Rs. 1,48,778/- excess from the complainant. But, even after the said appellant did not return the copy of R.C. Book , NOC and Form No. 35 etc. It is further submitted by Adv. Bansode that District Forum rightly appreciated facts and evidence while allowing complaint. Hence appeal be dismissed by upholding the said order.
"8. We thus heard counsel for both side and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that complainant had availed loan of Rs. 3,50,000/- from the appellant finance company. It is also an admitted fact that complainant enquired about the forecloser about the loan with the appellant finance company and after receiving the details about forecloser system complainant had deposited said amount on 07.09.2012 and thereafter complainant issued letters for reminder of returning the R.C. Book, blank cheques etc. But, the appellant finance company did not response to his request and on the other hand it had come before the Forum with the stand that complainant was in arrears of loan amount. In our view, this cannot be accepted. As appellant itself issued the forecloser/ simulation and accordingly complainant had deposited total amount. In our view, District Forum rightly appreciated facts and evidence while allowing complaint. Therefore we do not want to interfere the finding recorded by the Forum. Hence the following order."
ORDER "1. The appeal is dismissed.
"2. No order as to cost."
(paras 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the State Commission's Order)
7. The Finance Co. filed the instant Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 challenging the said Order dated 02.11.2015 of the State Commission.
8. We find the impugned Order of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned.
9. The State Commission has concurred with the findings of the District Forum.
10. We note the respective appraisal made by the two Fora, quoted, verbatim, in paras 4 and 6 above.
11. Within the ambit and scope of section 21(b), we find no crucial error in appreciating the evidence by the two Fora below, as may cause to require de novo re-appreciation of the evidence in revision.
12. The short point in this case is that the Complainant took loan from the Finance Co. for a Tractor; the Finance Co. retained the Registration Certificate of the Tractor and blank cheques from the Complainant; penal interest was charged by the Finance Co. for all delayed payments, which was dutifully paid and was not agitated by the Complainant; over the period, after inquiring and obtaining details about foreclosure of his loan, the Complainant deposited the entire requisite intimated amount for foreclosure with the Finance Co.; thereafter, the Finance Co. did not respond to his repeated requests for returning the Registration Certificate of the Tractor and his blank cheques and NOC etc.; then, on the Complainant approaching the District Forum, the Finance Co. filed a defence that the Complainant was in arrears of his loan account.
13. The facts of the case have been appraised by the two Fora below. The case of the Complainant has been conclusively established, the defence made by the Finance Co. has been conclusively determined to be false.
To recapitulate, the State Commission, in para 8 of its Order, has concluded that " - - - It is an admitted fact that complainant had availed loan of Rs. 3,50,000/- from the appellant finance company. It is also an admitted fact that complainant enquired about the forecloser about the loan with the appellant finance company and after receiving the details about forecloser system complainant had deposited said amount on 07.09.2012 and thereafter complainant issued letters for reminder of returning the R.C. Book , blank cheques etc. But, the appellant finance company did not response to his request and on the other hand it had come before the Forum with the stand that complainant was in arrears of loan amount. In our view, this cannot be accepted. As appellant itself issued the forecloser/ simulation and accordingly complainant had deposited total amount.- - -".
14. We also find the Award made by the District Forum (quoted in para 4 above), and as affirmed by the State Commission, to be just and equitable.
15. On the face of it, we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, as may require interference in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b).
16. We may, however, add that the Act 1986 is for "better protection of the interests of consumers", in recognizedly a fight amongst unequals.
This is a plain and simple case of a Finance Co., with wherewithal, on the one side, and an ordinary common Consumer, without wherewithal, on the other side, with the Finance Co. first causing loss and injury to the Consumer, and then indulging in litigation in one, and then, two, and now, three, Consumer Protection Fora. We also find that, before the third Forum, i.e. this Commission, also, its case fails.
All this is not viewed favourably.
17. We have no hesitation in dismissing the Revision Petition and confirming the Order dated 02.11.2015 of the State Commission.
Specifically, we confirm the Award made by the District Forum, as upheld and affirmed by the State Commission.
18. In addition, we deem it just and appropriate that Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid by the Finance Co. to the legal heirs of the Complainant towards cost of litigation in the revisional proceedings before this Commission.
19. The Finance Co. through its Chief Executive is directed to forthwith comply with the directions contained in this Order (paras 19 and 20 above), failing which the District Forum shall undertake execution, both for 'Enforcement' under Section 25(3) and for 'Penalties' under Section 27 of the Act 1986, as per the law.
20. A copy each of this Order be sent to the District Forum and to the legal heirs of the Complainant, the Respondent No. 1 herein, by the Registry within three days of its pronouncement.
...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DINESH SINGH MEMBER