IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 30th day of August, 2014
Filed on 31.12.2010
Present
- Smt. Elisabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No. 384/2010
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri.Kannan S. Kumar The Chief Manager
Ambadi, Kuthirappanthy Ward Union Bank of India
Thiruvambady P.O. Alappuzha
Alappuzha (By Adv. C. Parameswaran)
Represented by Power of Attorney Holder
Sreejith.V. S/o Velappan, Thriveni
Kalappura, Alappuzha
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:- The complainant availed a housing loan of Rs.19,00,000/- from the opposite party. But no one from the side of the opposite party inspected the work and they compelled the complainant to submit a completion certificate from the private engineer. The complainant questioned the above, hence his relation with opposite party was strained. At last, the complainant decided to stop the relation with the opposite party bank, and he closed his loan account by paying Rs.19,65,392/-. And he requested to return his documents including title deeds of his property. Then the opposite party demanded Rs.18,341/- more, to return the documents. The complainant has compelled to remit Rs.18,341/- more on 7.4.2009 and a Zero balance statement was also issued to the complainant from the opposite party. But the opposite party did not return the documents by saying excuses. Lastly the opposite party illegally realized Rs.39,357/- from the complainant and returned the documents. Hence this complaint filed by the complainant praying for realization of the excess amount collected by the opposite party from him.
2.Notice was issued to the opposite party and they had appeared before the Forum and filed version also. The version of the opposite party is as follows:- On 4.4.2009 the complainant tendered a cheque bearing No. 612055 for Rs.19,65,392/- drawn on HDFC bank for closure of the housing loan account by raising funds from third party. The opposite party had informed the complainant that as per the retail lending scheme formulated by the opposite party bank, prepayment penalty of 2% on the average balance of the preceding 12 months will be charged if the loan is taken over by any other Bank/FI or adjusted by the complainant in lump from any third party. On 7.4.2009 the complainant had remitted Rs.18,341/- in the account. The prepayment penalty charge of 2% amount in to Rs.39,357/-was remitted in the account, the complainant had availed loan from other bank for discharging his liability to the third party. Thus, it can be closure of the account and that entails the opposite party bank to levy pre closure charges as per the scheme formulated by the bank. The complainant is bound to pay the pre payment penalty charge. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in the matter.
3. The power of attorney holder has filed proof affidavit in support of case and produced documents in evidence - Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. Ext.A1 is the receipt showing excess amount collected from the complainant by the opposite party, Ext.A2 is the Zero balance account statement issued by the opposite party, Ext.A3 is the sanction letter issued by the opposite party and Ext.A4 is the Power of Attorney. Then the opposite party filed counter affidavit in lieu of cross examinations. On the side of the opposite party filed proof affidavit and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked. Ext.B1 is the sanction letter, B2 is the copy of the loan agreement, B3 is the retail lending scheme formulated by the opposite party bank and B4 is the debit voucher dated 8.4.2009 and complainant filed counter affidavit in lieu of cross examination.
4. Considering the allegations of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get realization of said amount, compensation and costs from the opposite party?
5. The complainant has availed a loan of Rs.19 lakhs from the opposite party on 28.2.2008. He closed the loan account on 6.4.2009 by paying Rs.19,65,392/-. According to the complainant even after obtaining the zero balance statement from the opposite party, the manager of the opposite party unlawfully made the complainant to remit an amount of Rs.39,357/- for getting the documents in the bank. The learned counsel for opposite party stated that as per the Retail Lending Scheme formulated by the opposite party bank as a prepayment penalty charge of 2% on the average balance of the preceding 12 months will be charged, if the loan is taken over by any of the Bank/FI or adjusted by the complainant in lump from any third party. In order to substantiate this contention, opposite party produced Retail Lending Scheme of the bank dated 20.4.2004 which marked as Ext.B3. On verifying Ext.B3 it is seen that the modifications mentioned therein are applicable from 20th April, 2004. In the instant case, the transactions effected during 2008-09. Whether the Ext.B3 applicable during 2008-09 is not proved by the opposite party. More over as per the modification No. H under the title penalty for take-over by other Banks it is stated that, “No Prepayment penalty if the loan is adjusted by the borrower from his own verifiable legitimate sources. To prevent take-over of accounts by other Banks/FIs it is now decided that “Takeover penalty of 2%” on the average balance of the preceding 12 months will be charged if the loan is taken over by any other Bank/FI or adjusted by the borrower in lump sum from any third source/party (except genuine sale).” In the instant case, ‘no take over’ process by any other Bank/FIs have occurred. The opposite party has no case that they handed over the security documents directly to any other bank or any third party. Complainant has obtained the documents by hand from the opposite party. The contention of the opposite party that the complainant revised the fund from third party source was not proved. The take over penalty of 2% can be charged only to prevent the take-over of accounts by other Banks/FIs. In the instant case, since there is no evidence on record to prove the contention of the opposite party, we are of the opinion that the above stipulation cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The charge of Rs.39,357/- as pre-payment penalty was therefore wholly arbitrary. The action of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result, we hereby direct the opposite party to return the amount of Rs.39,357/- (Rupees thirty nine thousand three hundred and fifty seven only) to the complainant with 6% interest from the date of order to till the realization and further pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as compensation for his mental agony, pain and sufferings etc. We further direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant as costs of this proceedings. The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of August, 2014.
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine. D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext. A1 - Receipt showing excess amount collected from the complainant by the
opposite party
Ext.A2 - Zero balance account statement issued by the opposite party
Ext.A3 - Sanction letter issued by the opposite party
Ext.A4 - Power of Attorney.
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Sanction letter
Ext.B2 - Copy of the loan agreement
Ext.B3 - Retail lending scheme formulated by the opposite party bank
Ext.B4 - Debit voucher dated 8.4.2009
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/SF
Typed by: pr/-
Compared by:-
