Haryana

Ambala

CC/412/2017

Vikramjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager LIC Housing Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

G.S. Bawa

30 Apr 2019

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA

 

                                                                           Complaint case no.        : 412 of 2017

                                                                           Date of Institution         : 21.11.2017

                                                                           Date of decision    : 30.04.2019

1.       Vikramjit Singh aged 47 years, son of Sh. Pritam Singh,

2.       Gurpreet Kaur aged 45 years, wife of Sh. Vikramjit Singh,

Both residents of House No. 240/1, Gobind Vihar, Charkhi Mohalla, Ambala City. 

 

……. Complainants.

 

 

1.       Branch Manager, LIC Housing Finance Ltd. 29-A, Staff Road, Ambala Cantt.

2.       Branch Manager, LIC, Housing  Finance Ltd, SCO No.144, Sector-13, OPP. Vidya Mandir School, Karnal.

 

       ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Ms. Neena Sandhu,  President.

                   Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

                  

                            

Present:       Sh. G.S.Bawa, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Ms. Anjana Goel, Advocate, counsel for OPs.

 

 Order:        Smt, Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties(hereinafter referred to as ‘Ops’) praying for issuance of  following directions to them:-

1. To pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.1,00,000/- for the unfair trade practice, mental torture, harassment,humiliation caused to the complainant alongwith 18% p.a. interest. 
2. To return the excessive amount charged as interest for the period of one year i.e. Feb.2016 to Feb.2017 along with permissible interest to the tune of Rs. 18%.P.A.

Or

any other relief whichthis Hon’ble Forum may deemfit.

 

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainants had taken the loan of Rs. 15 lacs on 19.03.2008 from the Ops for construction of the House. The said loan was sanctioned to the complainants alongwith the permissible interest as per bank rules. The complainants were repaying the loan in prescribed instalments along with interest. The complainants were earlier paying 10% interest on the Housing loan amount and lateron came to know that rate of interest had been reduced to 9%p.a. upon the advanced loan/pending loan, in the year, 2016. The complainants telephonically asked the Ops for reducing the rate of interest 9% p.a., but of no avail. On 17.02.2017, the complainants personally visited the office of the Ops at Karnal and again requested them for reducing the rate of interest to 9% p.a. OPs agreed to reduce the rate of interest for the housing loan taken by the complainants to 9% p.a. and on the asking of the OP No.2, complainants deposited a cheque of Rs.3,000/- with the OP No.2. The rate of interest was reduced to 9%p.a. by the Ops with effect from Feb.2017 whereas, the rate of interest was reduced to 9% in the month of Feb.2016. A legal notice was served upon the Ops through Regd. Post on 01.09.2017 but no reply was given by them. By charging excess rate of interest for a year, the Ops have committed in deficiency in service.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.                 Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable; no jurisdiction and suppressed true and material facts. On merits, it is stated that complainants applied for Housing Loan to OP No.2 and the same was sanctioned by it on 19.03.2008. The loan was repayable in  240 equal monthly instalments of Rs.14,475/- along with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. or as prevailing at the time of disbursement as per the terms and conditions of agreement of Home Loan. The rate of interest was reviewed on 31.10.2008 at the rate of 12%p.a., it was again reduced to 11.25% p.a. on 31.03.2009. The rate of interest was reduced to 10.50%p.a. on 30.04.2009 and 10%p.a. on 31.07.2009. The rate of interest was reviewed on 31.10.2010 at the rate of 10.50% per annum and 11% p.a. on 31.01.2011. The rate of interest was again reviewed on 07.05.2011 at the rate of 11.25%p.a. and 11.50%p.a. on 07.08.2011. On 07.11.2011 the rate of interest was reviewed at 11.90% p.a. and 12% p.a. on 08.10.2015 and was further reviewed on 08.11.2015 at the rate of 11.70%p.a. The rate of interest was again reviewed on 08.03.2017 at the rate of 9% p.a. and at present the rate of interest on Home Loan is 8.80%p.a. w.e.f. 08.07.2017. The OP No.2 has been charging interest as per the terms and conditions of the Home Loan Agreement and no excess amount has been charged from the complainants. The loan amount of Rs.11,52,688.07 is due as on 07.02.2018 but the same has not been paid by the complainants. It is further stated that no excess amount has been charged from the complainants, thus they have not committed any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.  

  3.               To prove his version complainant tendered affidavit as Annexure CW-1/A along with documents as Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for OPs tendered affidavit as Annexure R/A  alongwith  documents as Annexure R-1 to R-3 and closed the evidence.

4.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                 At the outset, the learned counsel for the OPs has raised a objection that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of territorial jurisdiction because no cause of action has arisen at Ambala as the complainants had taken the housing loan from the OP No.2 at Karnal and loan agreement was also executed at Karnal only. Nothing was done at Ambala and the OP No.1 has no concern with the loan taken by the complainants. They have impleaded the OP No.1 just to attract the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum.

The learned counsel for the complainants has argued that the property for which the complainants had taken loan, is situated at Ambala, as such this Hon’ble Forum has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter involved in the present complaint. Therefore, this objection raised by the OPs is not tenable.

In the case of Girish Ahuja Vs. M/s Panchsheel Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. 2018(4) CLT 78 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission has held that it is well settled that in the cases relating to the immovable property, the jurisdiction to entertain the lis is with the forum within whose jurisdiction the property is located/situated. In view of the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case referred to above, the objection raised by the OPs that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of territorial jurisdiction is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence, rejected.

On merits, the learned counsel for the complainants has argued that on 19.03.2008, the complainants had taken a loan from the OPs for Rs. 15,00,000/-, for construction of his house situated at Ambala. They started paying the loan instalments. However, in the month of Feb.  2016, they came to know that the rate of interest had been reduced to 9% per annum upon the advanced loan/pending loan. Accordingly, they informed the Ops telephonically for reducing the rate of interest @9% per annum on the due loan amount but no heed was paid to it. On 17.02.2017, they personally visited the OPs and requested for reducing the rate of interest @9% per annum. On the asking of the OP No.2, they deposited Rs.3,000/- with it. The OPs instead of reducing the rate of interest @9% per annum with effect from Feb. 2016 had reduced the rate of interest with effect from Feb. 2017. In this way, the OPs have charged excess amount from complainants on account of interest for the period of one year, thus the Ops be directed to refund the said amount alongwith interest. They be also directed to pay compensation for mental agony and physical harassment caused to him and also litigation expenses.

The learned counsel for the OPs has argued that on 19.03.2008, a loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- was sanctioned in favour of complainants, payable in 240 monthly instalments of Rs. 14,475/- each alongwith interest @10% per annum or as prevailing at the time of disbursement and the rate of interest of 10% p.a. will be applicable for three months of next review date as per the terms and conditions of the Home Loan agreement. He further argued that the complainants have wrongly alleged that OP No.2 had asked them to pay Rs.3,000/- to it. They have not placed on record any documentary evidence to prove this fact. The complainants vide letter dated 17.02.2017, Annexure R-2 had requested the Ops for rewriting of home loan. The request of the complainants was accepted by the Ops and rate of interest was reviewed on 08.03.2017 @9% p.a. Thus, Ops cannot be said to be deficient in providing service to the complainants and the present complaint filed by them is to liable to be dismissed with cost.

6.                From the perusal of letter dated 17.02.2017, it is evident that the complainants had requested the Ops for rewriting of the loan. The Area Manager of OP No.2 recommended for rewriting of existing rate of interest (ROI) to 9%.  In the said letter in term no.6, the details of rate of interest, it has been mentioned as under:-

1. Rate of interest before rewriting and  balance tenure
2.  

      (b) Rate of interest (Floating) after rewriting and Balance tenure

                             9.00%                                           119 months

         

In term Nos.7 & 8 of the said letter, it is mentioned that equated monthly instalment is of Rs.15,725/- and number of EMIs 240. The effective date of rewriting shall be effective from the date of next EMIs falling due after the date of receipt of the consent to the terms and conditions mentioned in this letter and the Stamped Demand Promissory Note. The said terms and conditions were duly accepted by the complainants and they have affixed their signature on the said letter. Once the complainants have accepted the terms and conditions of the rewriting of the loan then they have no occasion to agitate the matter at later stage. Even otherwise, no document has been produced by the complainants to prove that they had applied for rewriting of the loan in the year 2016. They have also not placed on record any document to prove that they have paid Rs.3,000/- to the OP No.2. Taking all these facts into consideration, we are of the view that the complaint filed by the complainants is devoid of merits, consequently, we dismiss the same without any order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on : 30.04.2019

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma) (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                        Member               President