STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Bhushan Singla s/o Sh.Madhu Sudan Lal, r/o H.No.5828-B, Sector 38(West), Chandigarh.

                           ……Appellant

V e r s u s

Citi Finance Consumer Finance India Ltd., SCO No.407-408, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

              ....Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Ms.Manisha Garg, Advocate proxy for Sh.Vishal               Garg, Advocate for the appellant.

              Sh.Vikas Sharma, Advocate proxy for Sh.D.K.Singhal,              Advocate for the respondent.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.             This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.06.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.             The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, namely Sh.Bhushan Singla, was sanctioned housing loan,  to the tune of Rs.35 lacs, with interest @ 9.5 % per annum (fixed). The said loan was to be repaid, in 180 equated monthly installments of Rs.36,548/- each. Subsequently, the complainant applied for the  second loan of Rs.5 lacs, which was sanctioned with interest @ 10% p.a. (floating).  It was stated that while sanctioning the second loan of Rs.5 lacs, the Opposite Party, tampered with the earlier loan agreement, by making the whole loan amount to the tune of Rs.39 lacs and recorded the rate of interest @ 10 p.a. (floating). It was further stated that, consequently, the Opposite Party, also increased the monthly installments  from Rs.36,548/- to Rs.42,538/- and the period of repayment of the loan, was also increased from 180 months to 222 months. Aggrieved by such action of the Opposite Party, the complainant wrote a letter dated 17.06.2008 (Annexure C-3), to the Customer Care Centre of the Opposite Party,  but to no effect.  It was further stated that the Opposite Party used to charge Rs.500/-, for supplying the statement of accounts.  On 08.02.2007, cheques for Rs.42,538/- and Rs.36,548/-,  were presented by the Opposite Party, out of which one cheque for a sum of  Rs.36,548/- was encashed,  and the other cheque was dishonoured.  It was further stated that the Opposites Party, collected Rs.42,538/- from the complainant and returned the amount of Rs.36,548/- on 12.02.2007, besides Rs.220/-, on account of cheque bouncing charges. It was further stated that, as per the sanction letters, payment date was 5^th day of each month, but, whenever, there was a holiday on 5^th  day of the month, the Opposites Party,  used to charge Rs.220/-, as cheque bouncing charges.  It was further stated that the Opposite Party, instead of charging 1% pre-payment charges, as orally agreed to by it, with the complainant, charged 2% as pre-payment charges.  It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.             The Opposite Party, in its written version, pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable. It was stated that the loan of Rs.35 lacs, was granted, vide loan agreement No.8247866, in favour of the complainant. It was  further stated that the said loan, was repayable in 180 monthly installments of Rs.36,548/- each with interest @ 9.5% p.a (fixed). It was further stated that the complainant after repaying 7 installments, against the said loan account, requested the Opposite Party, to provide a top-up loan amounting to Rs.39 lacs, which was sanctioned, vide loan agreement No.10383113 and the outstanding amount of Rs.34,75,901/-,  was adjusted and became part of the new loan account. It was further stated that the new loan of Rs.39 lacs, was to be repaid in 174 monthly installments of Rs.42,538/- each, with interest @ 10% p.a.(floating). It was further stated that the rate of interest was revised to 11.75% per annum, after intimating the complainant. It was further stated that, in order to keep the equated monthly installment of Rs.42,538/-, the number of installments had been increased to 222. It was further stated that, in case, the complainant intended to have additional copy of statement of account, he was liable to pay Rs.500/-.  It was further stated that the amount of Rs.220/- twice, had been rightly charged, by the Opposite Party, on account of cheque bouncing charges. It was further stated, that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             The Parties, led evidence, in support of their case.

5.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that the Opposite Party, acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreements, which were executed, by the complainant, in their favour, at the time of sanctioning the loans. The District Forum, further held that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. Ultimately, the complaint was dismissed.

6.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.             We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

8.             The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, at the time of taking the loan, the Opposite Party, orally agreed/promised, to charge prepayment charges @1% per annum, but later on,  had charged the same @2% per annum. She further submitted that even the rate of interest, as per the agreement, aforesaid, was 9.5% per annum(fixed), but the Opposite Party, charged the rate of interest at floating rate. She further submitted that the complainant applied for second loan of Rs.5 lacs, which was sanctioned with interest @10% per annum(floating) and not a loan of Rs.39 lacs. She further submitted that even the amount of Rs.220/-  on 12.02.2007,  Rs.220/- on 20.02.2007, on account of cheque bouncing charges and Rs.500/- on account of supply of statement of account, were wrongly charged by the Opposite Party, from the complainant. She further submitted that the Opposite Party, was deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice. She further submitted that the District Forum, fell into a grave error, in dismissing the complaint.

9.             On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/Opposite Party, submitted that the Opposite Party acted, strictly in accordance with the loan agreements, executed by the complainant. He further submitted that there was no oral promise, made by the Opposite Party, as per which, it agreed to charge prepayment charges @1%. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, deserves to be upheld.

10.           There is, no dispute, about the factum, that, in the first instance, the complainant was sanctioned housing loan to the tune of Rs.35 lacs, with interest @9.5%  per annum (fixed), vide loan agreement Annexure OP-1. The loan, as per the agreement, was to be repaid in 180 equated monthly installments of Rs.36,548/- each. No doubt, as per the complainant, he only applied for the second loan, to the tune of Rs.5 lacs and not 39 lacs. However, it may be stated here, that Annexure OP-2, is a copy of the home equity agreement, which was duly signed by the complainant, according to which the amount of loan was of Rs.39 lacs and the rate of interest was 10% per annum (floating). At that time, the outstanding amount of Rs. Rs.34,75,901/-,  was adjusted, which became part of the new/second loan. The second loan was repayable in 174 installments of  Rs.42,538/- per month with interest @10% per annum (floating). According to the Counsel for the appellant, the appellant is a Chartered Accountant. He, thus, being a well educated person, could not be expected to sign the loan agreements OP-1 and OP-2, without going through the terms and conditions thereof. Once, a person like the complainant, signs a document, with eyes wide open, later on, he cannot wriggle out  the terms and conditions of the same, by saying that oral promise made by the Opposite Party was contrary to the written agreements. Since, as per the second loan agreement, rate of interest was 10% per annum (floating), the Opposite Party, was, right in charging the same and even more than that as and when the same registered increase, as per the market conditions. Even the prepayment charges, were agreed to be paid by the complainant @2% per annum. No tangible evidence, was produced, by the complainant, to prove that oral promise was made by the Officials of the Opposite Party, that prepayment charges @1% per annum, shall be charged. The District Forum, was thus right, in holding that since the Opposite Party, strictly acted in accordance with the terms and condition of the agreements, referred to above, which were signed by the complainant and authorized signatories of the Opposite Party, it could not be said that there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, or it indulged into unfair trade practice.

11.           Vide Annexure C-6, the Opposite Party charged Rs.220/-  on 12.02.2007,  Rs.220/- on 20.02.2007 on account of cheque bouncing charges and Rs.500/- on 09.11.2009, for supplying the statement of account to the complainant. The Counsel for the Opposite Party, made a statement, at the time of advancing arguments, before the District Forum, as is evident from para 8 of the impugned order, that the Opposite Party was ready to reimburse the amount of Rs.940/-, referred to above, to the complainant, by way of concession. The appellant/complainant is, thus, entitled to the same. The District Forum was, thus, required to grant relief to this extent, but it dismissed the complaint as a whole. To this extent, the order of the District Forum, is required to be modified.

12.           No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

13.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted, with no order as to costs, with modification, in the impugned order, in the following manner:-

i)       The respondent/Opposite Party, shall reimburse the amount of Rs.940/-, to the appellant/complainant, on account of cheque bouncing charges etc., as conceded by its Counsel, and mentioned by the District Forum, in para 8, of the impugned order.

ii)      The aforesaid amount of Rs.940/-,  shall be paid by the respondent /Opposite Party, to the appellant/complainant  within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, it shall pay the same, alongwith interest @8% per annum, from the date of default.

14.           Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

15.           The file be consigned, to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

February 10,  2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg.