Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/23/42

Kiranjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Gurpreet Singh Adv.

01 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Consumer Complaint No:  42 dated 01.02.2023.                               Date of decision: 01.10.2024. 

 

Kiranjit Kaur aged about 37 years Daughter of Sh. Malkiat Singh, R/o. H. No.29, G.K. Valley Colony, Near D-Mart, P.O. Sangowal, Ludhiana. (M) 80547-77620.                                                                                                                                                                              ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited, SCO 130-132, Ist Floor, Apra Tower, Backside A Hotel, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Authorized Representative.            
2. Aditya Birla Housing Finance limited, Indian Rayon Compound, Veraval, Gujarat-362266, through its M.D./Director/Authorized Representative.                                                                        …..Opposite parties 

Complaint U/s. 35 of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate

For OPs                          :         Sh. Sachin Seth, Advocate. (Right to file                                  written statement stands already extinguished                            vide order dated 19.06.2023)

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that The complainant took a housing loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from the OPs vide loan account No.LNLUDOHL-06210092666ASAP to be repayable in equal monthly installments of Rs.11,362/-. The complainant stated that she had been regularly paying the installments of loan to the OPs and she was also paying insurance policy charges to the OPs on monthly basis. The OPs were charging very exaggerated interest than the limit as prescribed by RBI so she sent one Email dated 11.03.2022 to the OPs requesting to provide foreclosure statement of the loan in order to shift/transfer the loan but the OPs lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant served a legal notice dated 12.04.2022 to the OPs upon receipt of which, the OPs provided the foreclosure certificate and as such, the complainant cleared all the loan of the OPs and later on shifted the loan. The complainant further stated that the OPs with malafide intention withdrew/deducted Rs.61,440/- from her bank account on 20.09.2022 without any prior intimation. Then she approached the OPs but the OPs told that the said amount has been deducted on account of insurance charges. According to the complainant, she had paid the regular monthly installments of the insurance charges and after closing the said loan, she is not liable to pay any insurance charges. On persistent asking of the complainant, the OPs told her that the said amount has been wrongly deducted and same will be refunded to her later on. However, after waiting for a long time, the OPs only refunded Rs.11,180/- on 07.11.2022 in her account. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OPs with request to refund remaining amount of Rs.50,260/- but they did not accede to her genuine request. Even the complainant served a legal notice dated 15.11.2022 upon the OPs to which the OPs sent an evasive reply dated 05.01.2023. Hence this complaint, whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the OPs to refund remaining amount of Rs.50,260/- along with interest as well as compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, Sh. Sachin Seth, Advocate appeared and filed power of attorney on behalf of the OPs but thereafter, none turned up on behalf of the OPs and even failed to file written statement affidavit and documents despite grant of sufficient opportunity and as such, the right of the OPs to file written statement already extinguished vide order dated 19.06.2023.

3.                In evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents i.e. Ex. C1 is the copy of account statement w.e.f. 12.11.2021 to 11.11.2022, Ex. C2 is the copy of No Objection Certificate, Ex. C3  is the copy of legal notice dated 12.04.2022, Ex. C4, Ex. C5, Ex. C7 and Ex. C8 are the postal receipts, Ex. C6 is the copy of legal notice dated 15.11.2022, Ex. C9 is the copy of reply dated 05.01.2023 to legal notice dated 15.11.2022, Ex. C10 is the copy of Aadhar Card of the complainant, Ex. C11 is the copy of loan application  and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents produced on record by the complainant. We have also gone through written arguments submitted by the complainant.

5.                By filing the present Consumer complaint, the complainant, a former loanee of OPs, has raised a grievance that an amount of Rs.50,260/- illegally deducted by the OPs at the time of foreclosing of her housing loan account is liable to be refunded along with compensation.

6.                The complainant along with the complaint relied upon documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C11 including the reply dated 05.01.2023 Ex. C9 to the notice of the complainant, disclosing the facts mentioned in hereunder in chronological order.  In fact, the complainant applied and obtained two loans, one HOME LOAN PURCHASE – NEW of Rs.10,00,000/- and other HOME LOAN PURCHASE – TOPUPNEW of Rs.62,000/-. As per Ex. C11, both were payable in EMI of Rs.11,302/- and Rs.705/- in 240 months having a floating rate of interest 12.50% per annum.

7.                Dissatisfied by the services of the OPs, the complainant submitted the request to provide the statement of foreclosure vide email dated 11.03.2022. A Pre-closure Quote was furnished to the complainant by the OPs on 19.04.2022 whereby she was called upon to make the payment of the outstanding dues. The complainant took around about 5 months and finally made the payment on 17.09.2022. Consequently, on 26.10.2022, the OPs issued a No Objection Certificate Ex. C2 to the complainant.

8.                As far as home loan of Rs.10,00,000/- is concerned, there is no inordinate delay on the part of the OPs because on the receipt of the request for issuance of the statement on 11.03.2022, the same was furnished within reasonable time on 19.04.2022. It is the complainant who took five months in making the payment. On the receipt of the payment, the foreclosure process was completed by the OPs and NOC was issued. As such, there is no deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs in foreclosing of housing loan of the complainant.

9.                Now adverting to the facts regarding second loan of Rs.62,000/-, the allegations of the complainant are that an amount of Rs.61,440/- was wrongly deducted by the OPs, is wholly incorrect. In fact, as detailed in the reply dated 05.01.2023 Ex. C9 to the legal notice of the complainant, it is clear that it is the complainant who vide demand draft No.072607 dated 20.09.2022 voluntarily paid an amount of Rs.61,440/- as foreclosure payment against the insurance loan. Undeniably, the complainant received a refund of Rs.2699/- on 22.12.2022 and Rs.11,180/- on 07.11.2022 as applicable refund from the insurance loan account. However, the complainant was not eligible for any refund from the main insurance policy i.e. Liberty General Insurance Limited vide policy No.42173012107. The complainant also failed to plead and prove that what are the stipulations of loan agreement which entitles her to refund of amount of Rs.50,260/- . Contrary to that, the OPs have succeeded in explaining the reason of retaining the amount out of that total Rs.61,440/- tendered by the complainant through demand draft. On this count also, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. As such, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the present complaint deserves dismissal.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.   

11.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:01.10.2024.

Gobind Ram.