By Sri. M.S. Sasidharan, Member. The complainant’s case in brief is as follows: The complainant availed a loan of Rs.12,00,000/- from the respondents on condition that the rate of interest for repayment as 10.25% and number of EMI as 60 months at Rs.26,556/- each. The complainant was remitting the instalments properly and regularly. Meanwhile the respondent company brought a new proposal by which if the complainant prepared to pay 1% interest in advance for the entire remaining instalments the respondent will reduce one month EMI from total number of EMIs. Accordingly the old agreement was substituted by a new agreement with effect from 1.5.2003. As per the new agreement the complainant remitted Rs.10,533/- on 11.2.2003. Later the complainant decided to sell some of his properties and to close the loan account. Accordingly the complainant remitted the entire amount towards the loan account. The complainant demanded reduction of one EMI as promised and then it was informed to remit the entire amount first and afterwards the respondent will refund the EMI for one month. At the time of closing, the respondents have taken 2% closing charges from the complainant. When it was complained the second respondent informed that the matter was brought to the notice of first respondent and they will refund the same in few days. But the respondents have not refunded any amount in spite of repeated letter and reminders. The respondents have collected Rs.90,892/- illegally from the complainant. Hence the complaint filed to get back the amount collected illegally from the complainant. 2. In the counter filed the respondents have stated as follows. The complainant is not a consumer and has not availed any service from the respondent. The respondents denied the statement that they will reduce one month EMI from total EMIs on paying 1% interest. On sanctioning the loan the rate of interest was 10.25% and the number of EMIs are 60 months. The EMI amount was Rs.26,556/-. During February 2003 the interest rate was reduced and for availing the reduced rate of interest the complainant has applied for substitution of loan agreement and for the reschedulement of loan for which he has to pay Rs.10.533/- as reschedule charges. The complainant remitted Rs.10,533/- towards reschedule charges on 11.2.03/ Accordingly the loan amount was rescheduled as Rs.10,53,246/- and interest rate 9.5%, EMI Rs.26,556/- and period 4 years 7 months. As requested by the complainant the loan amount was rescheduled as 4.4.03 and 19.4.03. The allegation that the complainant was forced to pay 1% interest in advance for the entire remaining instalments is not at all correct. The payment of Rs.10,533/- made was towards the reschedulement charges. The complainant wants to close the loan account before the time limit. The premature closing of the loan is permissible only as per Clause 2.8 in the loan agreement. As per this the respondent can charge prepayment charges. The prevailing rate of prepayment charges at the relevant period was 2% of the loan amount. Having convinced these facts the complainant remitted the balance amount. Hence the respondent Company has not collected any amount from the complainant illegally. Hence dismiss the complaint. 3. In an additional counter filed the respondents have stated that the complainant has availed an additional loan of Rs.1,00,000/- on 11.2.2003. At the time of closing the loan liability the complainant has paid Rs.11,27,832/-. From the said amount the respondent had credited Rs.10,36,940/- towards the outstanding liability in the housing loan file and the balance amount credited towards the outstanding balance liability in the top-up loan agreement. Hence there is no illegal collection of amount. 4. The points for consideration are: (1) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of respondents? (2) If so, reliefs and costs. 5. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P8 and Exts. R1 to R11. No oral evidence adduced by both. 6. Points-1 to 3: The complainant’s case is that he believed the offer made by the respondents that if the complainant remit 1% of the interest in advance one month EMI will be reduced from the total number of EMIs. Accordingly the complainant remitted Rs.10,533/- on 11.2.2003 and the old agreement was substituted by a new agreement with effect from 1.5.03. But when the loan was closed prematurely the respondents did not reduce one month EMI as offered. Secondly when the complainant closed the loan account prematurely the respondents collected Rs.23,275/- as closing charges. Hence the complainant is liable to get back Rs.90,892/- which is collected illegally from him. The counter is that the respondents have never made an offer as claimed by the complainant. During February 2003 the rate of interest in the housing loan sector was reduced and for availing the benefit regarding low rate of interest complainant has applied for substitution of loan agreement and for reschedulement of loan. Accordingly the complainant has remitted Rs.10,533/- towards reschedule charges. As regards the question of premature closing of loan it is permissible as per clause 2.8 in the loan agreement. As per this clause the respondent company can charge prepayment charges. The prevailing rate of prepayment charges at the relevant period was 2% of the loan agreement. Apart from the housing loan the complainant has availed additional (top-up) loan of Rs.1,00,000/-. At the time of closing the loan liability the complainant has paid Rs.11,27,832/-. From the said amount the respondent had credited Rs.10,36,940/- towards the outstanding liability in the housing loan file and the balance amount credited towards the outstanding balance liability in the top-up loan agreement. Hence there is no illegal collection of amount from the complainant. As regards the question of remitting Rs.10,533/- on 11.2.03 Ext. R1 receipt shows that the said amount is paid as reschedule charges along with the EMI Rs.26,556/-. Ext. P7 is the loan substitution recommendation form wherein it is seen that the interest rate is reduced to 9.25 instead of 10.25. 7. As regards the question of collection 2% at the time of closing the loan agreement clause 2.8 of Ext. R3 which is the loan agreement duly executed by the complainant and the respondents company, empowers the respondents to accelerate the equated monthly instalments of prepayment. Even though the complainant has not stated anything about availing the top-up loan Ext. P4 shows that he has availed Rs.1,00,000/- on 19.11.02. Hence no amount is seen collected illegally from the complainant. He has paid Rs.10,533/- as reschedule charges and the original loan agreement has been substituted with the reduced rate of interest. The amount collected at the time of premature closing is on the basis of the loan agreement made between the two parties. 8. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 5th day of October 2009.
| | HONORABLE Rajani P.S., Member | HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S, Member | |
