This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 30-04-15 in the presence of Sri G.Jagadeesa Chandra Babu, Advocate for complainant and Sri P. Siva Rama Prasad, Advocate for opposite parties,  upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

          The complainant filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking a direction to the opposite parties not to collect dues of Rs.7,191/- ; to give explanation for claiming that  due amount and fix EMI @ Rs.42,495/- ; restraining them from  sending messages and phone calls instead of sending information in writing ; Rs.3,80,000/- as damages; Rs.80,000/- towards deficiency in service; Rs.15,000/- towards traveling, correspondence and incidental expenses and Rs.2,000/- as costs.  

2.      In nutshell the complaint averments are these:

          The complainants borrowed Rs.20,00,000/- under Grihaprakash scheme for purchase of a new flat.  The complainants agreed to pay the amount in equated monthly installments.  The complainants received loan amount under three installments and agreed to pay it in 60 equated monthly installments.  The opposite parties gave payment schedule on 15-06-13 in which the EMI mentioned was Rs.43,050/- .  The complainants issued eighteen cheques drawn on Andhra Bank, Medical College Branch, Guntur for Rs.43,050/- each covering installments up to December, 2014.  In April, 2014 the opposite parties used to send messages to the mobile of the 2^nd complainant informing that there were dues of Rs.18,18/- ,Rs1907/- and Rs.1929/-.  The opposite parties even did not send any calculation subsequently also.  On 19-04-14 the complainants went the office of the 1^st opposite party and inquired pertaining to dues mentioned in the messages.  The employee at the payment counter gave new revised payment mentioning EMI as Rs.44,846/- and asked the complainants to pay the  difference without giving any explanation.  The 1^st opposite party on 28-04-14 replied that the said dues were due to technical errors.  The complainants requested the 1^st opposite party to verify the difference in EMIs and fix the original EMI as Rs.42,495/- .  The 1^st opposite party did not send any reply for the letter dated28-04-14.  The opposite parties on 26-05-14 again sent a message demanding payment of dues.  The complainants have been regular in their payment as per payment schedule.  The 1^st opposite party gave different schedules i.e., on 15-03-13 for EMI @ Rs.42,495/-; On 15-06-13 for EMI of Rs.43,050/- and On 19-04-14 EMI @ Rs.44,846/-.  The complainants are under no obligation to pay Rs.4,786/- according to the  latest message dated 04-06-14.  The 1^st opposite party increased EMI thrice without any information and without any valid reason.  The complainants informed the 1^st opposite party that they are ready to pay the dues if valid cogent reasons are given.  There was no reply from the opposite parties 1 to 3.   On 25-09-14 also the complainants received message to their mobile from the office of the 1^st opposite party to clear dues of Rs.7,191/-.  The opposite parties are fully aware of the nature of complainants’ profession.  The complainants were annoyed by the untimely messages sent by the opposite parties and estimated the same @ Rs.3,80,000/- and Rs.80,000/- towards mental agony.  The above conduct of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service.  The complainant therefore may be allowed.     

3.      The opposite parties 2&3 filed memo adopting the version of 1^st opposite party and their contention in brief is thus:

The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The complaint is bad for misjoinder and also for nonjoinder of necessary parties.  The opposite parties sanctioned housing loan of Rs.20,00,000/- to the complainant on 15-03-13 with certain terms and conditions.  The opposite parties disbursed Rs.8,00,000/- on 14-06-13, Rs.8,00,000/- on 21-09-13 and Rs.4,00,000/- on 31-03-14 towards purchase of flat in their names.  The excess amount of EMI is adjusted towards principle amount and as such no loss was occurred to the complainants.   The amount so availed will be repayable in sixty months on the basis of payment schedule of Rs.42,495/- and tentatively fixing the rate of interest on floating rate of interest linked to the prevailing LHPLR.  The complainants cannot blow hot and cold after receiving third and final disbursement on 31-03-14.  There was no basis to claim damages from the opposite parties to a tune of Rs.3,80,000/- and Rs.80,000/-.  The above amounts are imaginary, exaggerative and inventive to grab money unlawfully.  The opposite parties did not commit any thing amounting to deficiency in service.  The complaint therefore may be dismissed with exemplary costs.       

4.       Exs.A-1 to A-9 on behalf of complainant and Exs.B1 to B-5 on behalf of the opposite parties were marked.

5.  Now the points that arose for consideration in this case are these:

1.       Whether the complaint is bad for joinder and non joinder of parties?

2.       Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency in service by sending SMS to complainant’s mobile.  

3.       Whether the complainants are entitled for compensation as claimed?

4.       To what relief?

6.    Admitted facts in this case are these: 

a).        The complainants availed loan of Rs.20,00,000/- for purchase of flat in   three installments.     

b).        The complainants gave eighteen cheques for Rs.43,050/- covering the period up to December, 2014. 

c).        The complainants agreed to discharge the loan amount under sixty equated monthly installments.  (Exs. A-1 = B-2 & B-3).

d).        The complainants sent registered notice to the 1^st opposite party on    05-06-14 who in turn received it. (Exs.A-5 & A-6).

e).        The opposite parties enchased eighteen cheques of Rs.43,050/- each.         

7.      POINT No.1 The provisions of CPC have limited application as mentioned u/s 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act to Consumer Fora as laid down by the High Court of AP in M/s Sivashakthi Builders and another vs. The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (WP.No.18735 dated 30-01-09) and by the Supreme Court in Ethiopian Airlines vs. G.N. Saboo 2011 (8) SCC 539.  Therefore the complaint cannot be dismissed for misjoinder of parties.  If the complainants failed to make claim against proper and necessary parties the complainants will face risk of dismissal.  In view of above mentioned discussion we answer this point against the opposite parties.      

8.      POINT NO.2:-      The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite parties by sending SMS demanding amount more than EMI amounted to deficiency in service and the opposite parties did not have courtesy even  to assign reasons and in the least to give reply. The learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand contended that the opposite parties acted strictly according to rules.

9.      The entire controversy rests on the rate of interest chargeable. Neither of the parties filed loan agreement before this Forum.  The complainants in para 7 of their affidavit denied the contention of the opposite parties mentioned in para 10 of their version. The relevant portion of rival parties is extracted infra for better appreciation:

“At para 10 of the version of the opposite parties it is mentioned that the EMI is fixed at Rs.42,495/- repayable in 60 months tentatively fixed the rate of interest on floating rate of interest linked to the prevailing LH PLR, current LHP is 14.40%.  The rate type is fixed and tenure is 1 to 24 months and floating rate is 10.00% as per the letter dated 15-03-2013.  The opposite parties never informed us LHP is 14.40% on which the EMI is changed, which is contrary to the sanction letter.” 

10.    The answer for the above controversy can be found in Ex.A-1 sanction letter itself and for better appreciation the same is extracted below:

We are pleased to inform you that we have “in principle” approved a HOUSING LOAN as per term and conditions mentioned herein:

1.       Scheme                            :        Griha Prakash

2.       Loan Amount           :        Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh)

3.       Rate of Interest Type          :        Bhagyalakshmi (Limited Period Scheme)

          Current LHPLR                     :           14.40%(emphasis supplied)

4.       Term                               :60 months

5.       Purpose                            :purchase of New Flat

6.       Repayment Terms    :

          6(a). Rest Frequency :Monthly

          6(b). Equated Monthly Installments :Rs.42,495/-

                                                (Rupees forty-two thousand four hundred Ninety five only)

            6(c)      No of EMIs                    : 60 months

7.         Total Upfront Fees                     : Rs.20,000.00+ Service Tax as Applicable. 

8.         Commitment Fees                     : As applicable from time to time. 

9.         Security                                    :As may be decided by LICHFL at its sole

discretion

:Under floating rate period. Prepayment charges       are not applicable.

10.       Fees on prepayment     :Under fixed rate period, the prepayment charges

                                                will be Nill if paid from own sources else 2.00% on

                                                the loan amount prepaid +ST

                                                             (The company reserves the right to call for

                                                necessary documents as an evidence of source of

                                                funds)

11.    As the complainants undertook to discharge the loan amount in sixty monthly installments the rate of interest could not be a fixed one as contended by the complainants.  On the other hand the rate of interest could be floating or changing as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the opposite parties.    

12.  The complainants on 28-04-14 sent an e-mail (Ex.A-9) to the 1^st opposite party. The relevant portion in Ex.A-9 is extracted below for better appreciation:

“We were sanctioned House loan No.710800001476 of Rs.20lacs and total amount was disbursed in three installments.  Initially on 15-06-13, payment schedule with EMI fixed as Rs.43,050/- was given to us.  At the same time we have given advance cheques covering monthly installments up to December, 2014, each cheque for Rs.43,050/-“.

The said contention of the complainant in Ex.A-9 it self is the answer in fixing the premium @ Rs43050/-per month instead of Rs.42,495/- as mentioned in Ex.A-1 sanction letter. 

13.    The opposite parties by sending SMS alerted the complainants regarding change of interest as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the opposite parties.  The opposite parties ought to have given reply in writing to the notice issued by the complainants stating the reasons for revising EMI though they are entitled in view of    Ex.A-1 sanction letter.  The opposite parties not giving reply to the complainants could amount to an irregularity but not deficiency in service in our considered opinion.  It is not the case of the complainants that the installment amounts paid by them were not credited to their loan account.  Under those circumstances the complainants did not incur any loss as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the opposite parties.  In view of the afore mentioned discussion we opine that the opposite parties did not commit any act amounting to  deficiency in service and caused loss to the complainants and  answer this point against the complainants.

14.    POINT NO.4:- The complainant claimed Rs.3,80,000/- as damages and compensation and Rs.80,000/- towards mental agony.  The complainants being doctors are busy in their profession as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the complainants.  The complainants without properly understanding contents of Ex.A-1 sanction letter rushed to this Forum.  In view of our findings on point No.3 the complainants are not entitled to any compensation much less the amount claimed.  We therefore answer this point also against the complainants. 

15.    POINT NO.5:- In view of above findings in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.     

          Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 08^th day of May, 2015.

MEMBER                                                                                 PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties: 

                                                                                                                         PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.