DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.
Complaint No. CC/15/91 of 06/05/2015
Decided on 17/08/2015
Sukhdev Singh aged about 45 years S/o Sh. Sukhchain Singh Resident of Village Rasulpur Saidan near Primary School, Patiala. ….Complainant.
Versus
1. G. I. C. Housing Finance Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Second Floor, Global Building adjacent Eye Hospital Backside Gopal Sweets, Leela Bhawan, Patiala.
2. G. I. C. Housing Finance Ltd., SCO-44,Sector-31 D, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.
3. G. I. C. Housing Finance Ltd. through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director registered office Universal Insurance Building, IIIrd Floor, S.I.R.P.M. Road, Fort Mumbai.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the
Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM
Sh. D. R. Arora, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
Smt. Sonia Bansal, Member
Present:
For Complainant : Sh. P. C. Sardana Advocate.
For Opposite party no.1& 2 : Ex-parte.
ORDER
NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER:
1. The complainant availed a housing loan of Rs.2 lac with interest @ 8.25% flat from OPs which was to be repaid in 15 years i.e. 180 equated monthly installments of Rs.1705/-. It is averred that complainant paid the EMI of Rs.1705/- regularly and some times he paid more amount than the fixed EMI. Upto 31/3/2013, the complainant paid a total amount of Rs.1,51,200/-. It is further averred that since the date of sanctioning of the loan till the filing of the complaint various changes came in the rate of interest and the RBI reduced the rate of interest on housing loan upto 7 %, 8 % and 9 % respectively but the OP intentionally failed to intimate the same rather it kept on charging the rate of interest @ 8.25% PM as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. The complainant requested the OP to issue the correct statement of the amount due against the complainant but OP failed to take any action in this regard. It is also alleged that the complainant made some payments through the agents of the OP but Op failed to issue receipts for the same.
2. The reply to the notice received from the OP, showed principal amount of Rs.1,98,103/- and the total amount due against the complainant as Rs.2,39,539/- and the same perturbed the complainant. OP kept on increasing the rate of interest upto 12.50% from 1/10/2011 without intimating the complainant which resulted into unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. The only amount due towards the complainant is Rs.48,800/- for the termination of the loan of Rs.2 lac. Hence, the complainant approached this forum u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ( for short the Act), for a direction to the Op to charge 8.25% interest on the remaining amount.
3. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against OPs no.1 & 2 who despite service failed to turn up and were thus proceeded against ex-parte.
4. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and his counsel closed the evidence.
5. The complainant failed to file written arguments. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and gone through the evidence placed on record.
6. Admittedly, the complainant raised housing loan of Rs.2 lac but the complainant claims that the same was advanced to him, repayable with fixed interest @ 8.25 % per mensum. It is also the plea taken up by the complainant that he has repaid a sum of Rs.1,51,200/- up to 31/3/2013 and that he is now liable to pay only a sum of Rs.48,800/-. Surprisingly the complainant has not, for the reasons best known to him, produced the agreement arrived at between him and the OP to show that the rate of interest was fixed one and not floating one. The complainant has himself produced in evidence Ex.C-1, the copy of the letter received by him from OP no.2 in response to his legal notice dt.15/2/2013 got sent by him through his counsel Sarvsh. H. S. Chauhan and A. S. Chauhan and in response to the same, OP no.2 informed :
“1. That your client Mr. Sukhdev Singh S/o Sh. Sukhchain Singh has availed a housing loan of Rs.200000/- at Floating rate of interest of 8.25% at the time of obtaining loan with monthly EMI of Rs.1705/- for 240 months. But the R.O.I. is raised up to 12.50% from 1.10.1011.
2. As per your request we are attaching herewith the status report & statement of the said A/c which clearly indicates that Principal O/s due to your client is Rs.198103/- and total O/s due to your client is Rs.239539/- as on 01.03.2013.
3. Further, this is also to intimate that your client has been in default of 6 months as on 1st March 2013 i.e. his 6 EMI's i.e. Rs.9852/- is still pending to be deposited. You are requested to guide your client to deposit the said 6 EMI's as soon as possible to avoid unnecessary legal action.”
7. Complainant could rebut the facts mentioned in Ex.C-1 by way of producing the statement of account to show that he was notdue to pay a sum of Rs.198103/- towards the principal and the total amount of Rs.2,39,541/- was due on 01/03/2013 but the complainant has intentionally failed to produce both the agreement arrived at between the parties as also the statement of account.
8. The complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and has with held the aforesaid two documents. This is not the job of the Forum to rendition the account of the complainant with the help of the receipts produced on file by the complainant. The chart Ex.C-3 prepared by the complainant showing the payment of Rs.1,51,760/- could be used by the complainant for the sake of contradicting the entries, if any, to be made wrongly in the statement of account but the said chart can not be used by us to declare the liability of the complainant.
9. As a result of our aforesaid discussion, it would appear that complainant has brought this complaint without any basis and the same is hereby dismissed.
Pronounced
Dated: 17/08/2015.
Sonia Bansal D. R. Arora Neelam Gupta
Member President Member
