Haryana

Sonipat

326/2013

kRISHAN KUMAR S/O BODH RAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. INDIA BULLS,2. THE SALES MANAGER INDIA BULLS - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ TYAGI

15 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                                      

                                    Complaint No.326 of 2013

                                    Instituted on:01.08.2013

                                    Date of order:07.07.2015

 

Krishan Kumar son of Bodh Raj, Chawla Chicken Corner, Subhash Chowk, Sonepat.

     …….Complainant

 

                   VERSUS

 

1.M/s India Bulls, above Yes Bank, near Sheela Shopping Complex, Sanjay Chowk, Panipat through its Home Loan Manager.

2.The Sales Manager M/s India Bulls (Home Loan Department_) Plot no.149, Opp. LML Show room Delhi road, Sonepat.

 

   ……..Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Pankaj Tyagi, Adv. for complainant.

           Respondent no.1 ex-parte.

           Respondent no.2 given-up.

 

BEFORE-   Nagender Singh, President.

          Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

          D.V. Rathi, Member.

 

O R D E R

 

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he had applied for the grant of home loan for Rs.30 lacs for construction purpose and the respondent no.2 obtained the signature of the complainant on certain blank forms. The loan of Rs.30 lacs was granted and disbursed to the complainant on 31.8.2011 which was to be repaid in monthly installments of Rs.47356/- with simple rate of interest.  In the month of 10/2012, the complainant received repayment schedule from the respondents and then the complainant came to know that the loan amount has been wrongly and illegally granted to him as loan against property instead of Home Loan and the respondents further wrongly and illegally issued one insurance policy for Rs.50,000/- in the name of the complainant, for which, the complainant has never consented.  The complainant surrendered the remaining entire loan amount and requested the respondents to accept the same, but the respondents told the complainant that they will charge 5% of the loan amount extra  in case he wants to surrender the loan amount.  The complainant thereafter issued legal notice to the respondents on 26.6.2013 calling upon the respondents to recalculate the amount of home loan of the complainant and to adjust the excess amount of interest already charged form him and to accept the remaining actual home loan from the complainant, but the respondents did not bother to reply to the said legal notice and this wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In the present case, the respondent no.1 was proceeded against ex-parte on 12.1.2015.  Further the respondent no.2 was given up by ld. Counsel for the complainant vide his separate statement on 5.6.2015.

3.       We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant at length and have also gone through the entire case file very carefully.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that in the month of 10/2012, the complainant received repayment schedule from the respondents and then he came to know that the loan amount has been wrongly and illegally granted to him as loan against property instead of Home Loan and the respondents further wrongly and illegally issued one insurance policy for Rs.50,000/- in the name of the complainant, for which, the complainant has never consented.  The complainant surrendered the remaining entire loan amount and requested the respondents to accept the same, but the respondents told the complainant that they will charge 5% of the loan amount extra  in case he wants to surrender the loan amount.  The complainant thereafter issued legal notice to the respondents on 26.6.2013 calling upon the respondents to recalculate the amount of home loan of the complainant and to adjust the excess amount of interest already charged form him and to accept the remaining actual home loan from the complainant, but the respondents did not bother to reply to the said legal notice and this wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment.

         In support of his case he has placed on record the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 i.e. postal receipt, copy of legal notice, repayment schedule and account statement w.e.f.31.8.2011 to 3.9.2012.

         But we find no force in the arguments raised by the ld. Counsel for the complainant because there is no copy of agreement executed in between the parties, on the file.  There is also no document produced by the complainant to prove that he has taken the home loan and not the personal loan.  Merely alleging allegations against the opposite parties is of no avail.  The onus heavily lies on the complainant to prove his case by leading cogent and concrete evidence, which is totally missing in the present case.  No doubt the respondent no.1 has been proceeded against ex-parte and respondent no.2 has been given-up, but the complainant cannot take the benefit of the same because it is for the complainant to prove the deficiency in service against the opposite parties.  In our view, the complainant has failed to prove his case against the respondents and thus, the present complaint fails and we hereby dismiss the same with no order as to costs.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the complainant and the same be also sent to the respondents for information. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)    (D.V.Rathi)         (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat.

 

Announced:07.07.2015