BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.25 of 2015

Date of Institution: 08.01.2015

Date of Decision:17.02.2016  

Gurjit Singh, resident of  H.No. 242, Guru Kirpa  Niwas,  Shivala Colony, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. DHFCL, having office at 26, Court Road, Amritsar through its Branch Incharge/ Head.
2. Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Senior Executive-Accounts, Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited, SCO 13, Crystal Plaza, Chhotti Baradari, Jalandhar.   

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.N.P.Sharma, Advocate

              For  Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Vikas Verma, Advocate

              For  Opposite Party No.2: Exparte.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Gurjit Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he applied for loan on 30.6.2014 with Opposite Party vide loan application No. 985796  and the same was sanctioned to complainant in July, 2014 for Rs.20 lacs as housing loan for purchase of new house for which the complainant paid Rs.20,000/- through draft dated 23.6.2014 on the asking of Opposite Party for insurance purpose. But no insurance has been done and no insurance policy has been supplied to the complainant and the Opposite Party has wrongly withheld the premium amount which they are liable to refund the said amount to the complainant with interest. However, when the complainant was to purchase house, he came to know that though the loan was sanctioned to him, but later on same was cancelled and was not at all disbursed to the complainant and on the other hand, the Opposite Party deducted a sum of Rs.21,013/- as first installment from the account of the complainant, which was illegal one. The complainant approached Opposite Party about this and it was told by them that they will re-sanction the loan to complainant and will adjust the said amount of Rs.21,013/- in the said fresh loan account and accordingly the complainant agreed to the same and again the loan of Rs.20 lacs was sanctioned to the complainant on 2.9.2014 which was paid  through cheque No. 884628 at the time of execution of sale deed. So much so, the complainant came to know that the loan sanctioned to the complainant is Rs.20,30,688/-, whereas he was disbursed only Rs.20 lacs and Rs.30,688/- were again wrongly not disbursed to the complainant and withheld by the Opposite Party and so much so, no adjustment of Rs.21,013/-  was given.  So much so, first installment of Rs.20,287/- was deducted on 15.9.2014, whereas second installment is deducted as Rs.19,141/-, hence is not clear to complainant that what is the EMI of the said loan account of the complainant. Complainant approached the Opposite Party and asked them about the exact EMI of the loan and also about adjustment of Rs.21,013/- and also about Rs.30,688/- which was wrongly not disbursed to the complainant and to adjust the same in loan account, but the Opposite Party has not done anything in this regard nor given proper and satisfactory reply.    Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to adjust the amount of Rs.21,013/- of earlier loan account which were wrongly deducted from the account of the complainant and also to adjust the amount of Rs.30,688/- which was wrongly not disbursed to the complainant in the present loan account and also to refund the amount of Rs.20,000/- charged as premium amount of insurance alongwith interest. Opposite Party be also directed to explain the exact amount of EMI of the loan account and submit clarification about the deduction of Rs.20,287/- as first installment and Rs.19,141/- of second installment to the complainant.  Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party No.1  appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the present complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law to harass and humiliate the present Opposite Parties and no cause of action arise in the present complaint.   It is denied that any amount of Rs.20,000/- was received by Opposite Party No.1 from the complainant for insurance purposes. In fact, that amount was paid by the complainant to the insurance company DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited regarding which the cover note was received by the complainant on 7.7.2014 as per DTDC courier tracker status and Opposite Party No.1 has no concern with it. Moreover, the complainant has not impleaded the insurance company as necessary party to the complaint. It is submitted that the loan of the complainant was sanctioned firstly on 3.6.2014, disbursed on 30.6.2014 and thereafter, same had been cancelled/ reversed later on 21.7.2014. As far as the deduction of Rs.21,013/- as installment is concerned, it is admitted by the complainant himself in the complaint that the complainant was asked to take the refund of the said amount, but the complainant himself refused to take the same and asked Opposite Party No.1 to adjust the same in the new loan account which was not possible for Opposite Party No.1. the total amount of loan sanctioned was Rs.20,30,688/- out of which an amount of Rs.30,688/- was towards insurance policy which was later on adjusted in the principal amount. As far as the amount of Rs.21,013/- is concerned, the reply has already been given. As per the statement of account of the complainant, Rs.20,287/- was credited in his account as installment on 12.9.2014 and an amount of Rs.1146/- was credited on 13.9.2014 as adjustment and on 13.10.2014 an amount of Rs.19,141/- was credited in his account after deducting the said amount of Rs.1146/- out of Rs.20287/-. After that the complainant has been paying Rs.20,287/- as monthly installment. It is wrong that an amount of Rs.30,688/- was not disbursed, in fact Rs.30,688/- were adjusted with principal amount as insurance charges.    While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. None appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, so Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.3.2015 of this Forum.  
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. Opposite Party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Jeewan Garg Ex.OP1/1 alongwith documents Ex.P1/2 to Ex.Op1/5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by  ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant  applied for loan facility of Rs.20 lacs as housing loan to the Opposite Party/ finance company  on 30.6.2014 which was sanctioned to complainant in July, 2014 to the tune of Rs.20 lacs for the  purchase of new house. The complainant paid  Rs.20,000/- through draft on 23.6.2014 for insurance purpose, but no insurance has been done nor any  insurance policy has been supplied to the complainant. Complainant alleges that   when he  was to purchase house, he came to know that though the loan already  sanctioned to him by Opposite Party No.1 was cancelled and  not disbursed to the complainant. On the other hand, the Opposite Party deducted a sum of Rs.21,013/- as first installment from the account of the complainant, which is totally illegal. The complainant approached Opposite Party who told the complainant that they would re-sanction the loan to the complainant and adjust the  amount of installment of Rs.21,013/- deducted as first installment  towards earlier loan, from the account of the complainant. The complainant was then sanctioned loan to the tune of Rs.20,30,688/- whereas the Opposite Party disbursed only Rs.20 lacs to the complainant and they withheld Rs.30,688/- nor Opposite Party adjusted Rs.21,013/- earlier deducted wrongly from the account of the complainant.  Ld.counsel for the   complainant, therefore, submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
8. Whereas the case of the opposite party No.1 is that Opposite Party No.1 has not received any amount of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant for insurance purposes. In fact that amount was paid by the complainant to the insurance company i.e. DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited regarding which the cover note was received by the complainant on 7.7.2014 as per DTDC courier tracker status and Opposite Party No.1 has no concern with it. Moreover, the complainant has not impleaded the said insurance company as necessary party to the complaint. The loan of the complainant was sanctioned firstly on 3.6.2014, disbursed on 30.6.2014, but said loan was cancelled/ reversed later on 21.7.2014. As the first  loan was sanctioned to the complainant so Rs.21,013/- as first installment was deduced from the account of the complainant. As the said loan was cancelled/ reversed, so the complainant was asked to take the refund of the said amount, but the complainant refused to take the same and asked the Opposite Party to adjust the same in new loan account which was not possible for Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 re-sanctioned the loan to the complainant to the tune of Rs.20,30,688/- out of which an amount  of Rs.30,688/- was deducted towards insurance policy which was later on adjusted in the principal amount of the complainant as per statement of account Ex.Op1/3. As per statement of account of the complainant  Rs.20,287/- was credited in his account as installment on 12.9.2014 and an amount of Rs.1146/- was credited on 13.9.2014 as adjustment and on 13.10.2014 an amount of Rs.19,141/- was credited in his account after deducting the said amount of Rs.1146/- out of Rs.20287/-. After that the complainant has been paying Rs.20,287/- as monthly installment. No doubt, earlier amount of Rs.30,688/- was withheld by Opposite Party for insurance, but as the complainant did not agree, therefore, this amount of Rs.30,688/- was adjusted in the principal amount in the loan account of the complainant. Ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 submitted that in these circumstances, there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion  that the complainant applied for loan vide application dated 30.6.2014 to the tune of Rs.20 lacs, to Opposite Party No.1 which was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.20 lacs as housing loan. Complainant paid Rs.20,000/- for insurance to DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited, as is evident from demand draft dated 23.6.2014 Ex.C8 for the insurance of the aforesaid loan amount. Opposite Party No.1 also deducted  Rs.21,013/- as first installment towards repayment of loan, from the account of the complainant. However, that loan was cancelled/ reversed on 21.7.2014, but Opposite Party No.1 did not return the amount of this installment i.e. Rs.21,013/- to the complainant. No doubt, Opposite Party No.1 re-sanctioned loan to the complainant to the tune of Rs.20,30,688/- and was disbursed to the complainant. There is no dispute regarding the said second loan sanctioned by Opposite Party No.1 to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.20,30,688/-. However,  the Opposite Party No.1 disbursed only Rs.20 lacs  to the complainant and withheld Rs.30,688/- for insurance of the said loan. But the complainant did not agree to this insurance, so, Opposite Party No.1 credited this amount to the account of the complainant on 31.12.2014 as is evident from the statement of account Ex.OP1/3 and the installments paid by the complainant towards this loan  are being regularly adjusted in the account of the complainant as is  evident from the statement of account of this loan account of complainant Ex.Op1/3. So, there is no dispute regarding the disbursement and repayment procedure of the second loan sanctioned to the complainant to the tune of Rs.20,30,688/-.
10. The only dispute remains between the parties in this case is regarding the first loan. Complainant has submitted that he paid Rs.20,000/- for insurance of the aforesaid loan, but the complainant could not produce any evidence to prove that he paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- regarding the insurance of the first loan, to Opposite Party No.1, rather the document produced on record by the complainant himself  i.e. demand draft Ex.C8 fully proves that this amount of Rs.20,000/-  was paid by the complainant to DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance Company Limited  and not to Opposite Party No.1 who is Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited, SCO 13, Crystal Plaza, Chhotti Baradari, Jalandhar. So, Opposite Party No.1 is not liable to refund this amount to the complainant as alleged by the complainant.
11. As regards deduction of Rs.21,013/- as first installment towards first loan by Opposite Party No.1, from the account of the complainant, Opposite Party No.1 was bound to return this amount to the complainant as Opposite Party No.1 has cancelled/ reversed said loan granted to the complainant, on 21.7.2014. This installment was deducted by Opposite Party No.1 from the account of complainant on 15.7.2014 as is evident from the statement of account of Corporation Bank Ex.C5, but Opposite Party No.1 did not return this amount to the complainant nor adjusted the same in the second loan account of the complainant. Therefore, Opposite Party No.1 is certainly in deficiency of service qua the complainant as regard the refund of this amount.
12. Consequently, this complaint is disposed of with the direction to Opposite Party No.1 to refund this amount of Rs.21,013/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from  15.7.2014 i.e. from the date, the amount of Rs. 21,013/- was deducted from the account of the complainant, till the same is refunded to the complainant. Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.2000/- to the complainant.   Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 17.02.2016.                                         (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                      President

                                        (Anoop Sharma)         (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)

 Member                            Member

hrg