Haryana

StateCommission

A/487/2017

KRISHAN KUMAR GULATI - Complainant(s)

Versus

CITI FINANCIAL CONSUMER FINANCE INDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ARVINDER ARORA

20 Jun 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Institution:21.04.2017

                Date of final hearing:30.05.2024

                                                Date of pronouncement:20.06.2024

 

First Appeal No.487 of 2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

1.      Sh. Krishan Kumar Gulati S/o Sh. Amir Chand, R/o H.No.B-2990, Aggarsain Chowk, Ambala City.

2.      Smt. Prerna Gulati W/o Sh. Krishan Kumar Gulati, R/o H.No.B-2990, Aggarsain Chowk, Ambala City.

.….Appellants.

 

Through Counsel Shri Arvind Arora, Advocate

 

Versus

 

1.      The Chairman/Head Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Limited, Regd. Office 3-LSC, Pushap Vihar, New Delhi-110062.

 

2.      Branch Manager, Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Limited (Previous Address 117, Alexandra Road, Capital Cinema Chowk) Amba Market, Kalheri Road, Near Capital Chowk, Ambala Cantt.

….Respondents.

Through counsel Shri Ammish Goel, Advocate

 

CORAM:   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Arvind Arora, counsel for the appellants.

                   Mr. Ammish Goel, counsel for respondents.

 

O R D E R

S. C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

                    Present appeal is preferred against the order dated 28.02.2017 in Consumer Complaint No.260 of 2011, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (now ‘learned District Commission’), vide which complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

2. complainants applied with opposite party No.2 (‘OP No.2’) for House Equity Loan for a sum of Rs.24,60,000/- in the month of May, 2006and it was sanctioned after entering into an Home Equity Agreement dated 12.05.2006. A reference No.8351034 was allotted to the complainants by the OPs and at the time of entering into the said Home Equity Agreement, parties were bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement. Thereafter, OP No.2 after completion of loan document issued a cheque for Rs.24,29,165/- bearing No.74105 dated 13.05.2006 of ICICI Bank as the proceeds of loan amount. It was alleged that the complainants enquired from the OPs about issuance of cheque of less amount of Rs.30,835/- and they were informed that an installment in advance has been deducted but no such credit has been given in the statement of account issued by the OPs.

3.                It was further alleged that the OPs on their own increased rate of interest from 10.75% p.a. as agreed to 13% p.a. and then to 14.45% p.a. well as number of EMI were agreed as 144, but the same were also increased  as 188 and then to 224 without consent of the complainants. Thereafter, complainants after coming to know that interest was being charged at a higher rate than the agreed rate, took the matter with official of OPs personally and in writing also, but the OPs neither corrected the rate of interest nor responded to the request letter of the complainants. Moreover, the OPs got mortgaged a commercial property worth Rs.1.00 crore against the sanction of loan of Rs.24,60,000/-. It was further alleged that the complainants were repaying installments regularly which is clear from statement of account upto 14.08.2007 but a balance outstanding of Rs.53,02,650/- has been shown and further statement of account dated 20.04.2009 showed balance of Rs.57,90,250/- against a loan of Rs.24,60,000/-. However, they deferred other financial commitments and paid Rs.23,27,645/- vide cheque No.837053 dated 22.01.2010 of OBC Bank and closed the loan account because it was not possible for complainants to adjust the loan account in monthly installments in their life time. Further it was alleged that the complainants requested OPs for refund of Rs.30,835/- excess interest charged and the prepayment charges of Rs.67,047/- through various letters but the OPs did not even bother to respond to those letters. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 29.07.2010 was served upon the OPs, but no reply was given by OPs. It was further alleged that the complainants also got lodged a complaint bearing No.206with Economic Offence Wing of Haryana Police at Ambala for refund of excess money grabbed by the OPs upon which OPs committed to refund the amount extra charged by them. However, the OPs refunded only a sum of Rs.67,000/- through cheque No.173968 dated 10.02.2011. So, again a legal notice dated 20.06.2011 was served upon the OPs, but of no avail. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

4. on the request of complainants, in the month of May 2006, OPs disbursed a loan amount of Rs.24,29,165/- to the complainants on 13.05.2006 after deducting an amount of Rs.30,835/- as processing fee, insurance premium and taxes. It was submitted that complainants after getting the requisite information from the OPs No.2 regarding revision of rate of interest charged on the loan amount, showed their willingness for making full and final payment of the whole balance outstanding amount. Further it was submitted that after getting the information about the total outstanding amount pending, the complainants paid an amount of Rs.23,27,645/- on 22.01.2010 and closed their loan account. Thereafter, OPs closed the loan account of complainants and returned all the property papers i.e. sale deeds dated 11.12.1998 and 01.12.1998 which were taken at the time of giving of the loan to the complainants and complainant No.1 duly acknowledged the receipt of the said documents from the OPs and consequently signed the property papers release acknowledgement letter dated 28.01.2010 without any protest. It was further submitted that the complainants even after receipt of the abovesaid property documents and the clearance of the loan, agitated against the prepayment charges added in the outstanding amount which was paid by the complainants. So, because of good track record maintained by the complainants in the account books of the OPs, they refunded prepayment charges to the tune of Rs.67,000/- to the complainants on 10.02.2011 as a goodwill gesture. Other allegations levelled in the complaint were denied and finally it was submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs with the prayer of dismissal of the complaint.

5.                After hearing the parties, learned District Commission dismissed the complaint and issued directions as mentioned above in 1^st para supra.

6.                Aggrieved from the impugned order passed by learned District Commission, complainants-appellants have preferred present appeal for setting-aside the impugned order by accepting the present appeal.

7.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Arvind Arora, learned counsel for appellants and Mr. Ammish Goel, learned counsel for respondents. With their kind assistance, contents of the appeal have also been properly perused and examined.

8. complainants applied for House Equity Loan of Rs.24,60,000/-  with present respondent No.2-OP No.2 in the month of May, 2006. It is also an admitted fact that a Home Equity Agreement dated 12.05.2006 was also executed between the parties. Reference No.8351034 allotted to the appellants-complainants by the respondents-OPs at the time of entering into the said agreement was also admitted. It is also admitted that after completion of loan document respondent No.2-OP No.2 issued a cheque bearing No.74105 dated 13.05.2006 for an amount of Rs.24,29,165/- of ICICI Bank as the proceeds of loan amount i.e. less amount of Rs.30,835/-. It is also an admitted fact that the respondents-OPs increased rate of interest from 10.75% p.a. to 13% p.a. and then to 14.45% p.a. as well as number of EMI were from 144 to 188 and then to 224.

9.                From the perusal of record reveals that there are mainly three issues of the present appellants-complainants with the present respondents-OPs i.e. they have charged pre-payment charges from the appellants-complainants, second is that the respondents-OPs have also charged much rate of interest than the agreed rate mentioned in the Loan Sanction Letter dated 05.06.2006 and the third is that the respondents-OPs have sanctioned the loan of Rs.24,60,000/- but disbursed only a sum of Rs.24,29,165/- which is less amount of Rs.30,835/-.

10.              Since, it is already admitted that appellants-complainants applied for a loan amount of Rs.24,60,000/-  with present respondent No.2-OP No.2 in the month of May, 2006 against which an amount of Rs.24,29,165/- was disbursed to the appellants-complainants on 13.05.2006 i.e. less amount of Rs.30,835/-. In this regard it is pertinent to mention here that above mentioned amount of Rs.30,835/- was deducted by respondents-OPs as processing fee, insurance premiums and taxes and this fact was already in the knowledge of appellants-complainant. As far as the question of charging excess rate of interest is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that revision of rate of interest charged on the loan amount was also duly informed to the appellants-complainants by respondents-OPs at the time of execution of Home Equity Agreement dated 12.05.2006. Further, the appellants-complainants closed their loan account on 22.01.2010 and all the property papers were returned back by respondents-OPs vide acknowledgment letter dated 28.01.2010.

11.              From the perusal of records, it also reveals that the present appellants-complainants moved a complaint before the S.P, Ambala on 10.11.2010 with regard to their grievances. However, the matter was compromised between the parties before the Police/Economic Cell and statement of both the parties recorded in the compromise which was signed by both the parties (Annexure C-22), which is reproduced as under:-

"Dr. K.K. Gulati S/o Amir Chand Gulati R/o Gulati Chandern Hospital, Ambala City and Citi Financial Bank, Ambala through its representative Sh. Rohit Kataria and Sh. Dinesh Sharma. -stated that the complaint which moved by 1^st Party against the 2^nd party for which the matter has been compromised between them and accordingly, to the terms of the compromise the Ops will pay the agreed amount on 14.02.2011 after taking approval from the higher official of the bank. "

 

No specific amount was mentioned in said statement, however it is admitted that  the present appellants-complainant received a refund of Rs.67,000/- vide cheque No. 173968 dated 10.02.2011 as prepayment charges from respondents-OPs on 10.02.2011. Since, the appellants-complainants have already closed loan account by making prepayment of entire loan amount on 21.01.2010 and thereafter received the payment of Rs.67,000/- as refund of prepayment charges from respondents-OPs on 10.02.2011, so no question of further dispute is made out.

 

 

12.             Hence, in view of the aforesaid facts emanating from the record it stands proved that there is no deficiency in service on the part of present respondents-OPs. In view of the above observations and discussion, the learned District Commission rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant. The impugned order passed by learned District Commission is well reasoned, based on facts and as per law, and therefore, there is no need to interfere with it. In view of this, present appeal is without merits and thus, stands dismissed.

13.               A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

14.               Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

15.               File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 20^th June, 2024                                                 S.C. Kaushik                                                                                                                        Member                                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench