BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

Present : Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, B.A. B.L.,President

Smt Meena Ramanathan, B.Com.,

 Lady Member

     Sri. G.Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc.,B.Ed.,LL.B., PGADR (NALSAR)

          Male Member

Thursday, the 31^st day of March 2011

C.C. No. 52 of 2010

Between:

1.Matam Vinoda W/o M. Veeresham,

2. Matam Veeresham,

    S/o Late Nagalingam,

    Both R/o Bonthapally village,

    Jinnaram Mandal, Medak Dist.                           ..Complainants

And

Branch Manager,

Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., (DHFL)

Sangareddy,                            

Medak District.                                                             ….Opposite party

         This case came up for final hearing before us on 22.03.2011  in the presence of counsel for the complainant, Mr. S.N. Chary, Advocate and for the opposite party Mr. K. Vijay Kumar, Advocate, upon hearing the arguments of both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Per se G. Sreenivas Rao, Member)

          This complaint is filed U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party to release Rs. 1,10,000/- and fix EMIs from the date of release of amount and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages for violation of conditions for releasing of funds along with cost.

1.                     According to the complainants, they have approached the opposite party for grant of loan for construction of their house. On completion of formalities, the opposite party sanctioned a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- through a Letter of Offer cum Acceptance dated 01.10.2008 by fixing Rs. 5274 as  EMI for the loan.

2.                      It was further pleaded that the complainant gave post dated cheques (PDC’s) as requested by opposite party. Lateron opposite party issued a cheque for Rs. 3,40,000/- on 21.10.2008 against the total loan amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,10,000/-was not released inspite of several requests and demands. As a result the complainant stopped construction work and they approached their friends and relations to borrow the loan to complete the pending construction work. The opposite party also demanded to pay three EMI’s to release balance of loan amount for which the complainants refused and requested to fix the EMI on the released amount i.e., Rs. 3,40,000/-. The opposite party has not responded to it.

3.                   The complainants also state that they gave blank cheques of SBH Bank towards EMI’s. As the complainant transferred to Hyderabad from Bonthapally village, the complainant NO. 2  insisted on the opposite party to return back his cheques so that he can give other cheques, through a letter dated 17.09.2009 and 21.10.2009. The opposite party not given any reply to them, further the opposite party deposited a cheque of the complainant bearing No. 942956 for Rs. 15,822/- which is equal to three EMI’s, it was dishonored, later they (OP) sent agents to Bonthapally village and threatened the complainant No. 1 showing some notices published in the newspaper of their company’s action under securitization Act. The complainant thus submits that the opposite party failed to release the balance of loan amount and fixing of EMI’s on the released loan amount, thereby causing deficiency in service. Hence this case is filed before the forum.

4.        a).     The opposite party contended in his counter that he sanctioned a loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- for house construction at Bonthapally village, through a Letter of Offer cum Acceptance dated 01.10.2008. The complainant accepted it and the loan amount was processed. The opposite party asked the complainant to comply the condition No. (4) “three months advance EMI payment” amounting to Rs. 15,822/-, before release of first disbursement of loan. The opposite party visited the construction site and as per the norms of company, prepared a cheque for Rs. 3,40,000/- and demanded the complainants to pay the three advance EMI’s at the time of disbursement. The complainant issued a cheque bearing No. 942956, dated 04.11.2008 for Rs. 15,822/- in favour of the opposite party. Subsequent to this the opposite party advanced Rs. 3,40,000/- through cheque No. 302683, dated: 21.10.2008, to the complainant towards first disbursement of loan. The aforesaid cheque of the complainant was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of complainant.

b)            The opposite party received a notice dated 25.02.2010 issued by the complainant and gave a suitable reply on 27.03.2010 advising to pay the advance EMI amounts before 31.03.2010. In the meantime the complainant filed PLC before the Hon’ble Lok Adalath and complainant never attended, so the PLC was closed due to non appearance of complainant before Lok Adalath.

c)             The complainant No.2 is the co-applicant and husband of complainant No. 1, who issued the aforesaid cheques as per the terms of the loan.

d)             The opposite party alleged that the complainant never informed the transfer of complainant No. 2 to Hyderabad from Bonthapally village and seeking return of cheques is absolute   false.

e)             The opposite party further pleads that instead of paying the EMI’s regularly, the complainants giving baseless, unreasonable notices and representations to put pressure on the opposite party. Despite several oral requests and written reply to complainant, they kept silent and filed present complaint against opposite party on false and baseless allegations.

f)            The opposite party also submits that there is no deficiency of service on their part and there is willful negligence on the part of complainants in not paying the accumulated dues and EMI’s as per the terms of loan. The opposite party also emphasize that the DHFL company serves the needy people in the interior areas by giving home loans, but the complainants filed this complaint with ill motive to damage the reputation of the company and to take undue advantage to avoid payments to the company.

g)           The opposite party adds to the above that there is no cause of action for the present complaint and it is not maintainable under the C.P. Act as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

h)            The opposite party finally submits that the complainant need to pay 20 EMI’s from the date of disbursement of the loan and the outstanding dues as on 29.11.2010 is Rs. 99,441/- payable by the complainant’s to the DHFL company.

5)            In support of the claim, the complainant filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A6 documents. The opposite party also filed evidence affidavit and the documents were marked as Ex. B1 to B8.

6)           Subsequently, the complainant advanced oral arguments along with written arguments and the counsel for the opposite party filed a memo to consider his version/counter as written arguments in addition to his oral arguments. We heard the arguments of both the parties.

7)        From the above submission. The point that arise for consideration is:

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part  of the opposite party? If so, what relief?

Point:

               The contention of the complainant is that the opposite party sanctioned Rs. 4,50,000/- for the purpose of house construction and out of which only 3,40,000/- has been released by the opposite and the balance of Rs. 1,10,000/- in still pending with the opposite party and the EMI Rs. 5274/- was fixed on the total loan amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- instead of Rs. 3,40,000/-.

               The opposite party has issued Letter of Offer cum Acceptance dated 01.10.2008 with regard to sanction of loan amount for Rs. 4,50,000/- specifying the conditions to loan, and one of the conditions is “payment of three months advance EMI” and the EMI was fixed at Rs. 5274/-.

               On acceptance of the offer of the opposite party, the complainant received Rs. 3,40,000/- as first disbursement of loans, as per the voucher dated 20.10.2008 presented as Ex. B4 and on the next day the complainant complying the agreement issued a cheque bearing No. 942956 dated 21.10.2008 for Rs. 15,822/- towards the payment of three advance EMI’s, as per Ex. B3 and also entered into loan agreement with DHFL on the same day, as per Ex.B5, further the complainant also made one Mr M. Somaiah as Guarantor to the said loan transaction vide Ex.B8. The aforesaid cheque was dishonoured and the SBH certified the same as “insufficient funds” vide Ex.B3. Further the legal notices of the complainant dated 17.09.2009, 21.10.2009 and 10.02.2010 are copies without any proof of sending to opposite party, like acknowledgement card, postal receipts etc., This seems to be unfair on the part of the complainant.

               So upon careful scrutiny of the records, it is clearly understood that “the loan shall be disbursed in one lump sum or in suitable installments, to be decided by DHFL with reference to the need or progress of construction of the property which decision shall be final and binding on the borrower”. The complainant 1 and 2  acknowledged the same in page (3) under clause 2.4 details of disbursement of the Loan Agreement vide file No. 7742 and loan code No. 6144, presented to the forum as Ex. B5 by the opposite party.

               Moreover the complainant also admitted in his agrument that the Pre Litigation case (PLC) filed before Nyayaseva Sadan (Hon’ble Lok Adalat) by him was dismissed.

               The complainants in their prayer of the complaint also revealed their intention to close the account by paying back the loan amount received by them.

               In view of the discussion held above, the complainants failed to prove that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complainants do not deserve any redressal and relief from this forum.

In the result the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

       Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this     31^st          day of March 2011.

           Sd/-                             Sd/-                            Sd/-

     President                 Lady Member               Male Member

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Complainant:                                                          For Opposite parties:

          -Nil-                                                                               -Nil-

 EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complainant:                                                          For Opposite parties:

                                                                                     Sd/-

 Member

Copy to

1)  The Complainant

2)  The Opp.parties

3)  Spare copy              Copy delivered to the Complainant/

Opp.Parties on ____________