DATE OF FILING : 11.07.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 19.09.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 29.12.2015.
Sri Kaushal Kuamr Gupta,
16/2, Kailash Banerjee Lane, Howrah,
West Bengal,
PIN 711 101. ………………………………………...………………… COMPLAINANT.
1. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited,
Warden House, 2nd Floor, SIR P.M. Road, Fort,
Mumbai 400 001.
2. The Branch Manager,
Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited,
4, N.C. Dutta Sarani, United Bank of India,
Kolkata Main Branch, 1st floor,
Kolkata 700 001. ………………………………………...…OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application filed by the petitioner, Koushal Kr. Gupta, against the o.ps., Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited, praying for refund of Rs. 17,500/- with interest taken by o.p. from the petitioner for the processing fees and other charges and to return the undated cheques and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation costs.
- The case of the petitioner is that he applied for a loan against mortgage before the o.p. finance company being housing loan amounting to Rs. 8,59,126/- and as per requirement of the o.p. company the petitioner paid Rs. 17,500/- as processing fees and other charges. The sanctioned letter issued by the o.p. showing that the loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.7,20,000/- but the actual loan sanctioned was Rs. 8,59,126/-. The o.p. also charged more interest being @ 13.75% instead of agreed interest of 11.5%. Thus, the o.p. company practised illegal trade. The petitioner asked the o.p. company for sanctioning the whole amount but they denied and also took undated cheques from him and also they encashed one installment of Rs. 11,298/- from the petitioner. The petitioner protested against such illegal practice of the o.p. and then filed this case.
- The o.p. contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made against them and submitted the petitioner and his wife applied for loan of Rs. 8,59,126/- but Rs. 7,20,000/- was actually sanctioned in their favour and so the petitioner applied for cancellation of such loan but the o.p. took one instalment of EMI amounted to Rs. 11,298/-. It is crystal clear from the document issued by the o.p. that the loan amount was Rs. 8,59,126/- but it is the case of the o.p. that Rs. 7,20,000/- was actually sanctioned. It is also clear from the documents issued by the o.p. that EMI was fixed Rs. 11,298/- and the total number of EMIs was 180 and thus the tenure of repayment was 15 years. In their written version the o.p. submitted that they collected a total processing charges of Rs. 17,500/- being charges for government levies, insurance, incidental charges etc. and also the petitioner informed the o.p. for cancellation of the loan as the loan amount was reduced to Rs. 7,20,000/- from Rs. 8,59,126/-. It is clear from the terms and conditions of the loan agreement that in the event of non compliance of any legal or technical formalities all the fees paid by the petitioner would be non refundable. But in the instant case the petitioner categorically submitted that he prayed for cancellation of the loan as the amount was reduced when the actual loan was sanctioned. But the o.p. not only consumed the several charges but also collected one EMI amounted to Rs. 11,298/- which was illegally taken by the o.p. even if the loan amount was not disbursed. It is noticed from the letter of offer cum acceptance that the loan amount was Rs. 8,59,126/- but the o.p. wanted to disburse Rs. 7,20,000/- and the same compelled the petitioner to cancel the loan and thus this Forum finds no latches on the part of the petitioner who cannot be held liable for the cancellation of loan by him as the o.p. violated the terms not actually disbursing Rs. 7,20,000/-. Rather it is the o.p. who reduced the loan amount and thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. who is liable to return the charges amounted to Rs. 17,500/- and also one EMI of Rs. 11,298/- to the petitioner illegally deducted from his account.
In view of above discussion and findings and keeping in mind the submission of the ld. counsel of both sides and also the documents on record this Forum finds that the petitioner succeeded in proving his case entitling him to get the charges paid by him to the o.ps. and also the installment which was collected from his bank account as noticed from the statement of the account of the petitioner.
Thus the claim case succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 390 of 2014 ( HDF 390 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs of Rs. 2,000/- be paid by the o.p. to the petitioner.
The petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for being Rs. 17,500/- being the processing fees and other charges and also one installment of EMI being Rs. 11,298/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of collecting the said amounts and the o.p. is directed to pay the above amount to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order failing the whole sum would again carry interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
