Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/272/2018

Amit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Neelam Singh

02 Mar 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/272/2018
Date  of  Institution	:	12/06/2018
Date   of   Decision	:	02/03/2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amit Kumar S/o Sh. Shiv Ram Singh, Resident of House No.42, Shakti Enclave, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali.

….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

 

1.   Branch Manager/Head, Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd., Branch Office: SCO 141-142, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

 

2.   Regional Manager, Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd., Regional Office: Megh Towers, 3^rd Floor, Old No.307, New No.185, Poonamallee High Road, Maduravoyal, Chennai – 600095.

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. RATTAN SINGH THAKUR      PRESIDENT

          MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Sapna Raheja Wasan, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Sunit K. Chauhan, Vice Counsel for Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

In brief, the Complainant availed loan against property (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the LAP”) from Opposite Party No.1 of Rs.65,00,000/- at floating rate of interest, which was sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 11.03.2016. The said loan was repayable in 180 installments of Rs.81,175/- each per month. The Complainant claims that on being opted to foreclose the aforementioned loan, the Opposite Parties levied foreclosure/ pre-payment charges of Rs.3,55,426.48P. The Complainant raised his protest with the Opposite Parties, but when nothing positive could come out, a legal notice dated 03.10.2017 was served upon them. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties contested the Complaint and filed reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that in the agreement/ sanction letter it was mentioned that the borrower shall have to pay foreclosure/ pre-payment charges as stipulated by the Opposite Parties. As the Complainant opted to foreclose the loan account in question, fore- closure charges were accordingly levied as per the terms & conditions. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement filed by Opposite Parties and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder.

 

5.      The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned Counsel for Parties and have also perused the record.

 

7.      The main grievance of the Complainant is, on making request to the Opposite Parties for foreclosure of the loan account, Opposite Parties had charged a sum of Rs.3,55,426.48P, which was not payable per terms of the loan agreement.

 

8.      It has come on record that the loan in question was sanctioned to the individuals. Opposite Parties have taken a plea that all the borrowers have not been impleaded and as such, the complaint deserves to be dismissed on this score. However, we do not find any merit in the same, as the Complainant is the main borrower and he is competent to file the present complaint. Perusal of Para 9 of Annexure C-1 which is a sanction letter dated 11.03.2016 containing General Terms & Conditions of loan shows that the prepayment charges (in case of floating rate of interest) will not be applicable where all the borrowers and guarantors are individual. Therefore, the act of Opposite Parties in charging the prepayment/ foreclosure charges of Rs.3,55,426.48P from the Complainant is not justified and amounts to deficiency in service and their indulgence into unfair trade practice, which further aggravated the pain & harassment of the Complainant.

 

9.      It is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large.  Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Parties.

 

10.      In the light of above observations, the present complaint succeeds against the Opposite Parties. The same is partly allowed. We direct the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, to:-          
    1. To refund the illegally charged foreclosure charges of Rs.3,55,426.48P to the Complainant;
    2. To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;
    3. To pay Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

11.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras (i) & (ii) above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from compliance of directions at Sr.No.(iii) above.

 

12.      The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

02^nd March, 2020                         

Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 

 “Dutt”