BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.299 of 2020

      Date of Instt. 18.09.2020

      Date of Decision: 26.02.2024

1.       Dheeraj Jain aged 40 years son of Sh. Pratipal Jain,

2.       Neha Jain aged 38 years wife of Dheeraj Jain, both residents of          627-A, Surya Enclave, Jalandhar.

..........Complainants

Versus

1.       Allahabad Bank merged into Indian Bank, Amritsar Bye Pass,  Jalandhar through its Chief Manager.

2.       Hardeep Kaur Bains C/o Manager Allahabad Bank merged into Indian Bank, Amritsar Bye Pass, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Rajneesh Dev, Adv. Counsel for Complainants.

                    Sh. Vinay Kant, Adv. Counsel for OPs.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainants, wherein it is alleged that the complainants were maintaining joint saving bank account No.50462103677 with OP No.1 in which OP No.2 was Manager. The complainants requested OPs for a Housing Loan of Rs.54,80,000/- for the purpose of purchasing land and construction of House. The loan applications of complainants were allowed and they were sanctioned with the said housing loan vide Sanction Letter in September 2018. As per agreement, the said sanction housing loan of Rs.54,80,000/- was to be disbursed to the complainants in parts i.e. for the purchase of land and for the construction of house. As per sanction letter, rate of interest was at MCLR + 0.05% (at present MCLR is 8.50% for one year) floating with monthly rest. The periodicity of reset of applicable MCLR shall be yearly i.e. next date of reset will be after one year from the date of first disbursement. As per terms and conditions of agreement, first disbursement of Rs.18,70,000/- for the purchase of land was transferred in loan account No. 50462833536 on 28.09.2018. Second part disbursement of Rs.9,00,000/- was made on 06.09.2019, third part disbursement of Rs.9,00,000/- was made on 30.09.2019, fourth part disbursement of Rs.9,00,000/- was made on 19.10.2019, fifth part disbursement of Rs.9,00,000/- was made on 12.12.2019 and final disbursement of Rs.9,000/- was made on 28.01.2020. As per agreement after the final disbursement the EMI was to be started. During the period of first installment disbursement, the OPs were entitled to interest in terms of Sanction Letter. The complainants time to time avail loan facility, paid interest on the loan amount. At the time of sanction of loan, the OPs took security documents of both the complainants in form of blank signed cheques, blank signed vouchers and blank signed other documents. They also later on took into possession the title deed of the property. Whenever, the bank disbursed the part payment for the construction of house, complainant raised construction verified by OPs time to time and also provided construction material bills, after confirming the part construction, the OPs further disbursed the part payment of loan for construction. The OP No.2 was Manager at that time of OP No.1, who is a head strong lady, directed/threatened the complainants to deposit Rs.95,000/- as overdue interest in January 2020, the complainants requested that no such amount of overdue interest was due. She further declared that the account will be declared NPA. Under the threat, the complainants deposited Rs.95,000/- as overdue interest although it was no due. Again in February 2020, OP No.2 again pressurized the complainants to deposit Rs.47,000/- as interest, the complainants were surprised as no such amount of interest was due. The complainants requested OPs to provide the details of overdue amounts, the OP No.1 refused and gave threat for non deposit of Rs.47,000/- as interest they will freeze the joint saving account of the complainants and directed the complainants to get transfer the housing loan account to some other bank. Under the constant threats, the complainants applied to other bank for the transfer of housing loan account, who called certain documents from OP No.1. Allahabad Bank. The complainants requested the OP No.2 to supply necessary documents for the transfer of housing loan but she refused. After some days, the complainant No.1 visited OPs to provide foreclosure amount but nothing was given in writing and orally the OP No.2 told the complainants that Rs.54,48,368/- were due. On 09.03.2020, the bank draft of Rs.54,48,368/- was handed over to OPs against valid receipts as full and final amounts and requested the OPs to return the security documents of complainants. Meanwhile the complainants came to know that the OP No.2 who is a lady of whim freezed/attached joint saving accounts of complainants and after some time illegally de-attached the same without notice, thereafter misused blank signed vouchers of complainants, transferred Rs.3500/- on 31.3.2020, Rs.4600/- on 16.3.2020 and Rs.12,618/- on 17.3.2020 fraudulently which is unfair trade practice amounting to deficiency of service. When the foreclosure amount by way of demand draft       was handed over to complainants 09.03.2020 then OPs had no right to charge any amount from the complainants. Rs.4600/- was charged for valuation of property on 16.09.2020 by the OPs which are hidden charges, after the full amount was repaid. The complaint against OPs were given to higher officials but to no effect. During the covid-19 period the complainant visited with the OPs with a request to return the security documents, OP No.2 called PCR and bank guard and directed them not to allow the complainants enter the bank and pushed them outside the bank, insulted them in public and society at large, which is defamation. On 18.03.2020, the OPs returned original title deed, building plan, blank signed cheques of Dheeraj Jain, but did not return the blank signed cheques of Neha Jain complainant No.2 and blank signed vouchers and documents of both the complainants on which a policy complaint has also been given. The OPs have charged excessive interest against the terms and conditions of the housing loan account. As per RBI notification dated 27.03.2020 overdue payment with effect from 01.03.2020 upto 31.05.2020 was extended even as per RBI guidelines payment of interest 01.03.2020 to 06.06.2020 is also to be extended. The said guidelines were issued by RBI during COVID-19. The OPs have charged wrong interest of Rs.95,000/-, Rs.47,000/- and charged amounts of Rs.3500/- on 11.03.2020, Rs.4600/- on 16.03.2020 and Rs.12,618/- on 17.03.2020 by got transferred the said amount from the joint saving account of the complainants by misusing the blank signed vouchers of the complainant without knowledge and consent, which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in services. The complainants are entitled to refund of the excess amount charged by way of interest and Rs.3500/-, Rs.4600/- and Rs.12,618/- wrongly charged after 09.03.2020, when foreclosure amount was paid alongwith interest @ 24% per month. The complainants were harassed by the OPs without any lawful excuse and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund of the excess amount charged by way of overdue interest and interest i.e. Rs.95,000/-, Rs.47,000/- and charged amounts of Rs.3500/- on 11.03.2020, Rs.4600/- alongwith interest @ 24% per month. Further, OPs be directed to return the remaining security documents of the complainants and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the instant complaint filed by the complainants is a gross misuse of the process of law and as such merits rejections with costs. It is further averred that this complaint is false, frivolous and unsustainable both in law and on facts. It is further averred that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainants against the OPs No.1 and 2 and therefore the present complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action . It is further averred that there is no negligence or deficiency on the part of the OPs No.1 and 2 in rendering services to the complainants and therefore the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that there complainants have not come to the Forum with clean hands and have suppressed material facts pertaining to the case from this Forum. The complainants failed to abide by the financial discipline of the bank and did not make the payment of the due installments in time. Moreover, the construction over the plot was not completely done as per the terms of the loan and further bills pertaining to the constructions were also not submitted to the bank. The OPs requested the complainants to abide by the financial discipline of the bank and further abide by the terms and conditions of their housing loan. Under these circumstances, the complainants out of their own wish shifted the loan to some other bank and the entire set of property documents were handed back to the complainants as per the banking norms and rules. As such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the dispute in the present complaint is civil in nature and requires detailed evidence for proper adjudication by this Forum. Therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is further averred that the complainants have got no locus-standi to file the present complaint. As such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant availed the housing loan of Rs.54,80,000/- from the OPs for the purpose of purchasing the land and construction of the house, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments from learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for both the parties very minutely.

6.                It is not disputed that the complainant availed the housing loan of Rs.54,80,000/- from the OPs for the purpose of purchasing the land and construction of the house. Sanction letter has been proved as Ex.C-1. The cheques of Rs.54,48,368/- was deposited in the account of the complainant vide Ex.C-2. The complainant has alleged that at the time of sanctioning of the loan, the security documents of both the complainants were obtained by the OP in the form of blank signed voucher and blank signed other documents. He has grouse against the OP No.2, who was manager of OP No.1 at the relevant time. The complainant has alleged that the OP No.2 has threatened the complainants to deposit Rs.95,000/- as overdue interest in January, 2020, whereas no such amount was due towards the overdue interest as alleged. She further threatened that the account will be declared NPA if the amount is not deposited. Due to her pressure, the amount of Rs.47,000/- as interest was deposited, though no such amount was due. He had filed the complaint against Harpreet Kaur Bains to the CEO Ex.C-3/OP-5. Reply to the complaint was filed by the OP No.2 Ex.OP6, wherein she has denied all the allegations. No such order has been produced on record by the complainant to show the decision on the complaint taken by the CEO to whom the complaint was moved. The complainant has further alleged that the OP has misused the blank signed voucher of the complainant and transferred the amount of Rs.3500/- on 31.03.2020, Rs.4600/- on 16.03.2020 and Rs.12,618/- on 17.03.2020. He has proved the letter vide which the documents were returned to him Ex.C-4. He has alleged the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in over charging the interest and other misc. charges.

7.                The OPs have produced on record the statement of account of the complainants. It has been alleged by the OPs that no overdue charges have been charged from the complainant. The account has been closed as the amount has been deposited. The title deed and other documents have already been returned. So, no cause of action has arisen to the complainants to file the present complaint.

8.                Ex.OP-7, the statement of account shows that the loan account of the complainant was closed on 17.03.2020. As per the submission of the OP, the charges were paid to the OP by the complainants on account of valuation charges and lien charges etc. The amount was transferred from the account of the complainant to the loan account of the complainant. The complainant has alleged that overdue interest has been charged, but this contention is not tenable as as per the sanction letter Ex.C-1 and Ex.OP-1, the rate of interest is floating rate of interest with monthly rests and the complainant himself has deposited the balance amount. The statement of account shows the account of the complainant was closed on 17.03.2020 when the entire amount was deposited. Against the amount of Rs.95,000/- and Rs.47,000/-, it has specifically been mentioned that this amount is towards the part period interest and as per the statement of account, at the time of closure of the account, Rs.12,617.52 were balance and Rs.12,618/- were credited in the loan account of the complainant. The valuation report has also been filed on record by the complainant, which has been proved as Ex.OP-4. Ex.OP-9 and Ex.C-4 shows that on 18.03.2020, the complainant had received the original title deed of mortgaged land sale deed No.2018-19/186/1/1894 favouring Dheeraj Jain and Neha Jain executed by Ranjit Kaur situated at Plot No.680-A, Surya Enclave, Jalandhar and Original Title deed of mortgaged land sale deed no.1424 favouring Ranjit kaur executed by Jalandhar Improvement Trust situated at Plot no 680-A, Surya Enclave Jalandhar and Fard for last 15 years in original. (Latest pending) and Proposed building plan of plot no 680-A, in the Dev scheme of 170 Acres known as Surya enclave on GT Road byepass at Jalandhar(photocopy) and Signed cheques of Bank of Baroda by Dheeraj Jain Chq range 000037-000041 and Bills pending. Ex.OP-9 clearly shows that the complainant has received all the bills in original on 20.03.2020. This document is duly signed by him. Ex.OP-10 shows that the loan account has been discharged in full on 17.03.2020 and mortgage was certified to be deleted. Ex.OP-10 is the certificate issued by the OP. This document was also received by the complainant on 20.03.2020. The document clearly shows that the account was closed on 17.03.2020 after clearing the entire amount of interest and over charges. The documents sought by the complainant in the relief clause are that ‘the OPs be directed to return the remaining security document’. No detail has been given by the complainant about the remaining security documents. In para No.3, he has alleged blank signed vouchers and blank signed other documents. Again, there is no reference and detail of other documents. All documents have already been received by him. The complainant has alleged overdue interest has been charged by the OP. No detail of overdue interest has been given by the complainant when the rate of interest was floating and not fixed. The account was closed on 17.03.2020. It has been alleged that wrong charges have been taken by the OPs, but this contention is not tenable as the charges for the processing of the loan are to be borne by the borrowers only. If he was aggrieved and was not satisfied with the conduct of the OPs, he could have filed the representation/complaint immediately after the closure of the account. The present complaint has been filed after six months of the closure of the loan account. Thus, the complainants have failed to prove any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                             Jaswant Singh Dhillon           Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

26.02.2024                          Member                                  President