BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                               BENGALURU – 560 027.                              

DATED THIS THE 19^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.789/2020

PRESENT:                                                          

Sri.C.V.Maragoor, B.com, LL.M.               ….      PRESIDENT

Smt.L.Mamatha, B.A., (Law), LL.B.….    MEMBER

Sri. M.B. Seena, B.A., (Law), LL.B.            ….         MEMBER

S/o Sheik Emamuddin,

Aged about 52 Years,

Residing at No.36/37,

J.P.Nagar, Vinayakanagara 5^th Phase,

Rep by Sri.G.N.Krishne Gowda, Adv)

V/s

OPPOSITE PARTY:

Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited,

Represented by its Branch Manager,

No.1347/36, 2^nd Floor,

Ragigudda Circle,

South End Main Road,

 Ex-parte.

******

//ORDER//

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to direct the Opposite party-Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited, Bengaluru (hereinafter called as OP) to hold the unauthorized EMI till the disposal of complaint, to discharge EMI which was already paid by the complainant and treated as principal together with interest as the complainant is ready to pay actual amount of principal with interest to the OP. 

2. It is the case of complainant that he being the owner of site bearing No.50, Katha No.13/2-21, BBMP limits, Alahalli, Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The complainant has availed housing loan of Rs.25,27,459-99 on 30.09.2017 from the OP agreeing to repay in EMI of Rs.22,852/- with interest @ 12.07% p.a. The OP without knowledge of complainant has deducted the amount towards Chola MS General Insurance, Standard Fire and Perils policy, Group Health Insurance Policy and Group Personal Insurance Policy.  The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- but the OP has not taken the post EMI paid by the complainant. The OP has collected and treated the EMI as illegal post EMI. Thus the OP has played unfair trade practice by exploiting the complainant and also committed deficiency of service hence, this complaint. 

3. The OP despite the service of notice has proceeded ex-parte.

4. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.P1 to P3 documents. 

          5. We have heard the oral arguments advanced by the learned counsel for complainant in addition to written brief submitted by the complainant and the points that would arise for determination are as under:

1)      Whether the complainant proves unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP?

2)      Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?

6.  Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

1. POINT NO.1 : In the affirmative
2. POINT NO.2 : In the partly affirmative for

                                the following;

REASONS

          7. POINT NO.1 AND 2:- The learned counsel for complainant has submitted that the OP has unnecessarily deducted the amount from sanctioned loan amount towards different types of insurance though the complainant had not given consent for said insurance. The OP has not deducted the EMI paid regularly in the loan balance. The complainant in the affidavit filed in lieu of evidence has reiterated the averments of complaint. 

          8. Ex.P2 is welcome letter dated 30.09.2017 with regard to sanction of loan.  The complainant has produced statement of account which bearing page no.16 and according to this loan amount sanctioned and disbursed shown as Rs.25,27,459/- on 30.09.2017. On the back page of statement the OP has received Rs.69,030/-, Rs.5,900/-, Rs.24,432/-, Rs.26,182/- and Rs.3,01,915/- on                30.09.2017 and Rs.21,00,000/- debited to the account of complainant out of sanctioned loan of Rs.25,27,459/-.  It means the OP has deducted Rs.4,27,459/- towards different insurance in the name of complainant and his wife. The complainant has produced copy of policy, the first policy certificate of insurance which is in the name of complainant and premium amount is Rs.3,01,914/- including GST and the said insurance covers the loan amount of Rs.29,27,457/- for 180 months. In fact the loan sanctioned amount is Rs.25,27,459/- but the insurance premium recovered on the amount of Rs.29,27,457/-. The OP has deducted Rs.26,182/- out of the loan amount under Chola Credit Linked Premium Critical Illness Insurance Policy which is issued in the name of complainant. The OP has deducted Rs.69,030/- premium under Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy. The OP has deducted Rs.4,887/- under fourth Group Health Insurance Policy. The OP has deducted Rs.1,180/- under Group Personal Accident Insurance Policy. All these policies premium amount has been deducted comes more than Rs.4,00,000/- from the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.25,27,459/-. The OP would have issued health risk policy in the name of complainant since he has availed loan by mortgaging his site. The OP has issued various policies especially Group Health Insurance which is no way connected to the complainant. The OP has exploited the complainant by deducting more than Rs.4,00,000/- nearly 1/5^th of sanctioned loan amount as premium towards different policies.  This act of OP amounts to unfair trade practice. 

          9. The complainant has produced statement of account which is on page no.19 to 29. The statement of account indicates that the complainant has been paying EMI from 10.10.2017 a sum of Rs.22,852/- every month but the same has not deducted from the principal and interest.  It shows that the opposite party has not maintained account statement properly by showing the balance amount payable by the complainant after deducting every month EMI. The complainant has regularly paid EMI but the OP has not maintained account in the regular course of business which will amount to unfair trade practice. This shows that the OP has not given proper service showing the balance amount payable by the complainant amounts to deficiency of service. The complainant has produced payment receipt dated 05.08.2020 and according to this the complainant has paid Rs.1,75,000/- on the said date but there is no entry in the statement of account maintained by the OP that the said amount is deducted from the loan balance.   Therefore, the complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following; 

ORDER

The complaint is allowed with cost directing the opposite party to furnish the statement of account from the date of disbursement of loan showing the balance amount payable by the complainant after deducting each EMI payment till this date. The OP shall furnish the said statement of account to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. Otherwise, opposite party shall liable to pay Rs.100/- per day as penalty to the complainant from the date of default till the date of compliance. 

The OP shall pay litigation cost of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant within 30 day from date of order. Otherwise it carriers interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing complaint till the date of compliance. 

Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite party at free of cost. 

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 19^th day of August, 2021)                                            

• M.B. SEENA )         (L.MAMATHA)          (C.V.MARAGOOR)    
•  

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainants side:

• the complainant filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1. Original payment receipt bearing No.1809279 dt.05.08.2020.
2. Welcome letter dt.30.09.2017 together with certificate of insurance.
3. Chola credit limited premium critical illness insurance policy (three sheets).

Witness examined for the opposite party side:                  

                                              -NIL-

Documents marked for the Opposite Parties side:

• M.B.SEENA)         (L.MAMATHA)          (C.V.MARAGOOR)    
•