District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 014/2020.
Date of Institution:07.01.2020.
Date of Order: 07.02.2023.
1. Suresh Aggarawal S/o Shri Jai Bhagwan R/o H.No. 1775, Sector-16, Faridabad.
2. Mrs. Maya Devi W/o Shri Suresh Aggarwal R/o H.No. 1775, Sector-16, Faridabad.
…….Complainants……..
Versus
1. DCB Bank Ltd., Ist floor, 1-A/260, Neelam Bata Road, NIT, Faridabad through its Branch Manager.
2. Chairman & Managing Director, DCB Bank, 6th floor, Tower-a, Peninsula Park, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400 013.
3. Authorized Officer, DCB Bank, 7/56, A set House, 3rd floor, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005.
4. Authorised Officer, Citifinancial Consumer Finance India Limited, 3 LSC, Pushp vihar, New Delhi – 110 062.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Girraj Singh, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Nishat Ahmad, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 to 3.
Sh. Rajiv Rana, counsel for opposite partyNo.4.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had taken two home finance loan of Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.22,90,000/- from opposite party No.2 vide loan account No. 7161180 (HCFDEL00025662) & 7161660 respectively on usual terms and conditions vide sanction letter dated 21.01.2006 at interest rate @ 9.5004463% p.a. EMI of Rs.9,058/- for the loan of Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.29,632/ for the loan of Rs.22,90,000/- respectively repayable in 120 months alongwith calculation sheets with EMI and interest which had since been paid regularly and accordingly entire home finance loan was to be adjusted upto February, 2016 as per terms of sanction letter dated 21.01.2006. Apart from this, through a letter dated 15.01.2006, the applicant were informed that the rate of interest on this loan would be reduced further by 0.5% effective thereon when the applicant pay first 06 installment when the applicant pay first 06 instalments of the loan. But the opposite party increased the rate of interest of the loan from time to time and as per lette4r dated 22.06.2016 the rate of interest was increased @ 15.5% and was charged from the complainant, which was quite shocking and beyond the paying capacity of the complainant. The increased rate of interest was opposed by the complainant from time to time but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the legitimate request of the complainant and increased the rate of interest @ 15.5% p.a. vide order dated 22.06.2016. As per the sanctioned letter the EMI + interest had since been repaid in 120 installments with EMIs of Rs.29632/- & 9,058/- upto Feb. 2016 and it was presumed that the aforesaid loan would had been liquidated in February, 2016 (total payment made Rs.11,50,000/- approx. for the loan of Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.36,00,000/- for the loan of Rs.22,90,000/- as per electronics clearing services (ECWS). The ECS (electronics clearing services) mandate for EMI’s was given only for 120 months i.e. upto February, 2016 as such any debit after completion of 120 months was without mandate and was unauthorized & illegal. As per terms of sanction letter dated 21.01.2006 the processing fees was to be charged @ 0.5% but the opposite parties had charged upfront Rs.45,000/- instead of Rs.15,000/- from account in January, 2006. As such a refund of Rs.30,000/- from January 2006 till date was under complaints but of no avail. The opposite parties had sent a securitization notice dated 04.05.2016 and after receiving said notice the complainant had sent a legal notice dated 09.06.2016 whereby calling upon the opposite parties to withdraw their securitization notice dated 04.05.2016 and square up the outstanding due sin terms of CCFIL sanctioned letter dated 21.01.2006 at their end. Even after the said notice, the opposite parties did not withdraw their said notice and in place thereto put pressure upon the complainant, they filed an application u/s 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of financial Asses and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Sarfaesi Act). The complainant had received the information in this regard when they had received a notice NO. 1-2/P.B dated 02.01.2017 from the court of Shri Chander Shekhar, District Collector, District Magistrate, Faridabad, in which the complainants was directed to appear before him on dated 31.01.2017. Prior to appear before the court of Hon’ble District Collector/District Magistrate, Faridabad, the complainants had received as letter dated 30.01.2017 from the side of the opposite parties in which the opposite parties had agreed to settle the matter of the complainant and directed the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on dated 31.01.2017 for A/c. No. HCFLDEL00025895 of Rs.2,00,000/-. After receiving the said notice, to avoid/escape from unnecessary litigation and to keep maintain and peace and harmony in their life the complainants agreed to pay the same to the opposite parties and after receiving the full and final payment of Rs.3,00,000/- by the opposite parties, they had issued a certificate on dated 08.02.2017 in favour of the complainants in which they had clearly mentioned that the complainants had made the full and final payment of the above said loan account and now no amount was due in respect of the said loan. The complainants were in need of money for their personal uses, hence, they had applied with a bank/financial institution for taking the new loan. The from the said bank/financial institution, it had come to the knowledge of the complainants that their CIBIL record was not good, hence, they were not entitled to get loan from any bank or financial institutions as a sum of Rs.11,44,690/- and Rs.2,83,175/- were outstanding towards the above said opposite parties. Rather the actual fact was that no amount was due towards the complainant of the opposite parties as they had made the full and final payment of the opposite parties on 31.01.2019 and the opposite parties had issued certificate in this regard in favour of the complainant. But the opposite parties had no mentioned the said fact in the CIBIL record the complainants were defaulter in making the payment of loan amount and were unable to get loan from any other bank/financial institution. Thus the opposite parties had played fraud and cheating with the complainants. Thereafter the complainant many times requested the opposite parties to correct their CIBIL record. But the opposite parties were not listening the genuine request and reminders of the complainant and were bent upon their illegal activities.The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) correct the CIBIL record of the complainants.
b) get back the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the opposite parties alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of making the payment i.e. 31.01.2017 till its final realization.
c) get back the amount of Rs.30,000/- which was charged by the opposite party as an application and process fee which was in excess of terms and conditions of loan approval letter dated 21.01.2006.
d) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
e) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainants approached the opposie party for two housing loans and accordingly applied for the same. Upon receiving the application, the opposite party sanctioned two loans of Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.22,90,000/- payable in equated monthly instalments of Rs.9,058/- & Rs.29,632/- for 120 months with other terms and conditions as applicable. It was submitted that the rate of interest was floating rate of interest and was liable to change according to market conditions and other monetary policies of the Reserve Bank of India and the Government of India from time to time. Specific averments of the same was mentioned in the loan agreement. It was submitted that application and processing fees was 2% as mentioned in the sanction letter. Due to some confusion, the complainant thought that the application and processing fees was only 0.5% which was not true. Instead, relaxation of 0.5% was granted to the complainant and 1.5% were charged for application and processing fees. Hence, it was stated that a discount of 0.5% was given which transpires to Rs.45,000/-. It was submitted that the loan tenure of both the loans availed by the complainant wa 120 months of equated monthly instalment. However, after the increase in rate of interest the, EMI was not increased rather duration was increased from 120 months. It was submitted the amount given by the complainant for the settlement of money due relating to the two house finance loans i.e. Rs.3,00,000/- was the amount which became due because of the increase rate of interest. Opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.4 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.4 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the loan was admittedly availed by the complainant in the year 2006 from the answering opposite party. Further the loan was assigned to opposite party in the year 2011 as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement which was admittedly within the knowledge of the complainant, the said loan was admittedly settled by the complainant with the assignee i.e. opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 during the Sarfaesi proceeding before Hon’ble District Collector/District Magistrate Faridabad in the year 2016, in pursuance of which the loan account of complainant was closed and certificate was admittedly received by the complainant issued by opposite parties Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, no legal relation now exists between the complainant and the answering opposite party and the complainant was no longer a customer/borrower of the opposite party. It was submitted that the loan was sanctioned in the month of January 2006 further the loan account of the complainant had been assigned in favour of opposite parties Nos.1,2 & 3 i.e. DCB Bank Ltd. and the said information was duly conveyed to the complainant vide letter dated 10.12.2011. Assuming but not admitting jurisdiction of this learned Forum to entertain any complaint filed by the complainant against the answering opposite party, if the complainant had any grievance against the answering opposite party, the complainant ought to have filed a complaint within two years from the date of receipt of such intimation. Clearly the present complaint had been filed belatedly, much beyond the limitation period of two years, Opposite party No.4 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties– DCB Bank Ltd. & Anr. with the prayer to: a) correct the CIBIL record of the complainants. b)get back the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the opposite parties alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of making the payment i.e. 31.01.2017 till its final realization. c) get back the amount of Rs.30,000/- which was charged by the opposite party as an application and process fee which was in excess of terms and conditions of loan approval letter dated 21.01.2006. d) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . e) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Suresh Aggarwal, Ex.C-1 – letter dated January 21,2006 regarding application for home finance loan – reference NO. 7161180,, Ex.C-2 – letter dated 21.01.2006 regarding application for home finance loan – reference No. 7161660, Ex.C-3 - letter dated 15.01.2006 regarding interest rate, Ex.C-4 – letter dated 02.05.2007, Ex.C-5 – letter dated 10.12.2011 regarding assignment of loan agreement, Ex.C-6 – letter dated 04.05.2016 regarding notice under section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Ex.C-7 - Summary Credit account information, Ex.C-8 – letter dated 11.07.2011 regarding loan account No. 7161880/7161660, Ex.C-9 – letter dated 21.6.2016 regarding fraud done by7 CitiFinancial Consumer Finance India Limited (CCFIL) and DCB Bank, Ex.C-10 - letter dated 10.09.2015, Ex.C-11 – letter dated 30.01.2017 regarding full & final settlement of your Home loan/home equity loan account No. HCFLDEL00025662 and HCFEDEL00025895, Ex.C-12 – legal notice, Ex.C-13 – reply to legal notice, Ex.C-14 - statement of account, Ex.C-15 – letter dated 08.02.2017,, Ex.C-16 – Certificate dated 08.02.2017, Ex.C-17 – letter dated 02.01.2017 regarding application on behalf of Secured Creditor/Bank for taking action in terms of Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002, Ex.C-18 – letter dated 02.01.2017 regarding application on behalf of Secured Creditor/Bank for taking action in terms of Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Ex.C-19 & 20 – Account repayment statement,
After availing eight effective opportunities, evidence on behalf of opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 not filed. Hence, evidence on behalf of opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 were hereby closed by court order vide order dated 06.01.2023.
As per the evidence of the opposite party No.4 Ex.RW-4/A – affidavit of Shri Sandesh Godse, authorized representative of Citicorp Finance India Ltd., having office address at, local shopping complex, New Delhi, Ex.R-1 -
Fresh certificate of Incorporation consequent upon change of name.
7. As per dictum of Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, the District Commission is empowered to admit a complaint within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. The present complaint is time barred under Limitation Act as the loan was sanctioned in the month of January 2006 further the loan account of the complainant had been assigned in favour of opposite parties Nos.1,2 & 3 i.e. DCB Bank Ltd. and the said information was duly conveyed to the complainant vide letter dated 10.12.2011. It is evident from letter dated 30.01.2017 vide Ex.C-11 written by the DCB Bank to Maya Devi regarding full and final settlement of your home loan/home equity loan account No. HCFLDEL00025662 and HCFEDEL00025895 amounting to Rs.3,00,000/-. It is also evident from certificate dated 08.02.2017 issued by the bank vide Ex.C-16 in which it has been mentioned that “Mrs. Maya Devi to whom DCB bank had granted a CITIFIN Home Equity vide agreement No. HCFLDEL00025662/HCFEDEL00025895 has been repaid in full and that no amount is now due in respect of the said loan. The present complaint is time barred under Limitation Act as the cause of action arose on 30.01.2017 whereas the present complaint had been filed in the year 2020 i,e 07.01.2020 after expiry of two years.
8. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed being time barred. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 07.02.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
