Before the  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,

Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that he availed housing loan from Opposite Party No.2 bank for Rs.8 lakhs on 16.05.2018 which was to be repaid in installment upto 04.06.2033. The complainant has cleared the above said loan as on 3^rd of August, 2020 and the Opposite Parties recovered Rs.7,78,673/- plus Rs.1000/- as damages and in this way, the Opposite Parties recovered the amount in excess i.e. Rs.9093/- and Rs.9093/- totaling Rs.18,186/- and Rs.1000/- as damages which are liable to be refunded. The Opposite Parties deducted Rs.48.93 paisa and Rs.48.93 paisa and Rs.543.69 paisa from the saving bank account of the complainant. The complainant visited the Opposite Parties bank at Moga for the refund of the excess charged amount, but to no affect.    In this way, said conduct of the Opposite Parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service and as such, the Complainant is left with no other alternative but to file the present complaint.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

1. The Opposite Parties may be directed to refund the amount of excess charged i.e. Rs.631.56 paisa, Rs.9093/-, Rs.9093/- and also to refund Rs.1000/-  and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages for causing him mental tension and harassment or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted. 

2.       Opposite Parties   appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version  on the ground inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous.  It is submitted that house loan was sanctioned vide sanction letter on 1.06.2018 to the tune of Rs.8 lakhs which was to be repaid in 180 monthly instalments of Rs.9093/-. Thereafter, the complainant requested to fore close the said loan account  vide letter dated 27.07.2020, but the Opposite Parties have not recovered or deducted any excess amount from the complainant. The complainant alleges that the Opposite Parties have recovered Rs.9093/-  on account of interest two times in April, 2020 and May, 2020, but there is no excess amount deducted from the account of the complainant. The complainant had applied for the moratorium for three months for the period of March 2020 to May, 2020 as allowed by Reserve Bank of India during Covid-19 pendamic and accordingly, the Opposite Parties applied a moratorium capitalization Rs.22,441/- as payable by the complainant in the home loan account. However, the same was not recovered from the complainant which can be seen from transaction summary as on 30.01.2021. Further with regard to excess amount of Rs.1000/-, one EMI has been depsited by the complainant late and thus, due to the bouncing of standing instructions for EMI, Rs.5000/- was charged as penalty and Rs.499/- was charged towards the current month interest on the home loan and it was rounded off to Rs.1000/- and hence, there is no excess amount charged by the Opposite Parties from the complainant. On merits, the Opposite Parties took up almost same and similar pleas as taken by them in the preliminary objections.  Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

3.       In order to  prove  his  case, the complainant has tendered into evidence copy of aadhar card Ex.C1, affidavit Ex.C2  alongwith copies of documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand,  to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Parties  tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Gurjinder Singh Ex.Ops,1,,2/1  alongwith copies of documents Ex.Ops1,2/2 to Ex.Ops1,2/5 and  closed the evidence.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties and  gone through the documents placed  on record.

6.       We have perused the rival contentions of the parties. The case of the complainant is that he availed housing loan from Opposite Party No.2 bank for Rs.8 lakhs on 16.05.2018 which was to be repaid in installment upto 04.06.2033. The complainant has cleared the above said loan as on 3^rd of August, 2020 and the Opposite Parties recovered Rs.7,78,673/- plus Rs.1000/- as damages and in this way, the Opposite Parties recovered the amount in excess i.e. Rs.9093/- and Rs.9093/- totaling Rs.18,186/- and Rs.1000/- as damages which are liable to be refunded. The Opposite Parties deducted Rs.48.93 paisa and Rs.48.93 paisa and Rs.543.69 paisa from the saving bank account of the complainant. The complainant visited the Opposite Parties bank at Moga for the refund of the excess charged amount, but to no affect.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties   has repelled the aforesaid contents of the complainant on the ground that admittedly, the house loan was sanctioned vide sanction letter on 1.06.2018 to the tune of Rs.8 lakhs which was to be repaid in 180 monthly instalments of Rs.9093/-. Thereafter, the complainant requested to fore close the said loan account  vide letter dated 27.07.2020, but the Opposite Parties have not recovered or deducted any excess amount from the complainant. The complainant alleges that the Opposite Parties have recovered Rs.9093/-  on account of interest two times in April, 2020 and May, 2020, but there is no excess amount deducted from the account of the complainant. The complainant had applied for the moratorium for three months for the period of March 2020 to May, 2020 as allowed by Reserve Bank of India during Covid-19 pendamic and accordingly, the Opposite Parties applied a moratorium capitalization Rs.22,441/- as payable by the complainant in the home loan account. However, the same was not recovered from the complainant which can be seen from transaction summary as on 30.01.2021. Further with regard to excess amount of Rs.1000/-, one EMI has been deposited by the complainant late and thus, due to the bouncing of standing instructions for EMI, Rs.5000/- was charged as penalty and Rs.499/- was charged towards the current month interest on the home loan and it was rounded off to Rs.1000/- and hence, there is no excess amount charged by the Opposite Parties from the complainant.

8.       It is not the denial of the parties that the complainant availed the housing loan from the Opposite Parties which was to be repaid by the complainant in 180 EMIS of Rs.9093/-, but the complainant chose to fore close his loan account and settled the loan account on 3^rd of August, 2020. Bare perusal of the statement of account placed on record by the Opposite Parties Ex.Ops1,2/4 shows that  there is no excess amount deducted from the account of the complainant. It is not disputed that the complainant had applied for the moratorium for three months for the period of March 2020 to May, 2020 as allowed by Reserve Bank of India during Covid-19 pendamic and accordingly, the Opposite Parties applied a moratorium capitalization Rs.22,441/- as payable by the complainant in the home loan account. However, the same was not recovered from the complainant which can be seen from transaction summary as on 30.01.2021. Further with regard to excess amount of Rs.1000/-, one EMI has been deposited by the complainant late and thus, due to the bouncing of standing instructions for EMI, Rs.5000/- was charged as penalty and Rs.499/- was charged towards the current month interest on the home loan and it was rounded off to Rs.1000/-. To rebut the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties, the complainant has failed to produce any iota of evidence on record to prove that the Opposite Parties have charged the aforesaid amount in excess  and hence, we are of the view that there is no excess amount charged by the Opposite Parties from the complainant and we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

9.       In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we found no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and hence, the instant complaint stands dismissed.  Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:10.05.2022.