Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/21/12

Harbhajan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

G.I.C.Housing Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Surinder Singh, Adv.

24 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RUPNAGAR

 

Consumer Complaint No.  12 of 2021

Date of Institution:          : 19.02.2021

Date of Decision            :  24.03.2023

 

Harbhajan Singh, aged about 53 years son of Gurbax Singh, resident of VPO Lodhi Majra Tehsil and District Rupnagar.

 

….. Complainant

Versus

 

G.I.C. Housing Finance Limited, SCO 44, Sector 31-D, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Officer.

.

                                                                               …..Opposite party

 

(Complaint under the provision of Consumer Protection Act)

 

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

SH.RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

 

For complainant                       :         Sh.Surinder Singh, Advocate

For OP                                     :         Sh. R.S Rai, Advocate

                            

Per : KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1. Brief facts of the case are that the OP has introduced a housing loan scheme with the financial assistance of government and  under that scheme 25% subsidy will be given and beneficiary has to return the balance 75% amount with interest @ 7.5% in 20 years in installments on reducing rate. OP further told that if beneficiary faield to pay any installment then there will be no penalty or other charge but beneficiary has to clear/return the whole loan within 20 years, but if beneficiary failed to clear/return the whole loan within 20 years, then 2.5% interest will be charged on unpaid amount. On the allurement of the OP, the complainant took loan of Rs.2,40,000/-  and OP has taken his signatures on various documents. Thereafter, complainant returned more than Rs.8,00,000/- in installments. The agent of OP used to collect the installment from the complainant.  OP has initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act  against the complainant, wrongly, illegally and arbitrarily and the complainant reserves his right to challenge the same.  Now, OP demanded Rs.7,54,612/- from the complainant wrongly and illegally.  OP has taken excess amount from him and demanded more amount from him. The complainant has suffered physical , mental and monitory harassment due to the miscreant acts and conduct of OP, as such, OP is liable to pay damages of Rs2,50,000/-  to the complainant on this score.  The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP and prayed that the OP be directed to return the excess amount taken by OP from the complainant wrongly and illegally, not to recover any amount and to pay Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation on account of great mental, physical and harassment, besides to pay 12% annum interest on whole amount from February 2007 till its realization and to pay Rs.70,000/- as costs of litigation.
2. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by averring that the complainant  just to counter the steps already initiated by OP as per the provision of Securitization and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 i.e. SARFAESI Act 2002 to recover the dues from the complainant and without having any cause of action either in his favour or against OP.  Notice of the said application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act 2002 was duly served upon the complainant. The complainant neither joined the said proceedings nor challenged the order passed by Ld. District Magistrate in the said application of OP as provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.  The complainant neither raised any objections nor paid any heed to the requests of the OP.  The complainant himself made various defaults qua  his loan account and he failed to comply with the terms of the loan agreement admittedly executed by him with OP.  The loan application of the complainant was duly considered by the OP and accordingly amount of Rs.2,40,000/- was sanctioned to the complainant. In terms of the loan agreement the said loan was repayable with interest @ 7.5% floating interest per annum compounded monthly and complainant was required to repay the same within 240 monthly installments.  The complainant started committing defaults in making payment of monthly installments to OP and failed to discharge his contractual liability towards OP as agreed by him in the loan agreement status report for the month ending 31.08.2021. The said conduct of complainant, the OP was constrained to issue demand notice dated 31.10.2012  under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 whereby  loan account of the complainant was declared non performing asset NPA and he was called upon to repay the entire loan amount along with other charges.  The said loan was granted to the complainant on his application and he himself executed a loan agreement with OP at the time of availing loan facility. OP denied any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, OP has tendered in evidence affidavit of Varun Mehta Authorized Representative of GIC Housing Finance as Ex.OP-1 along with copies of documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-14 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case very carefully as well as written arguments filed by parties.
5. It is an established fact that the complainant took a loan from OP for an amount of Rs.2,40,000/-. Thereafter, the complainant returned more than Rs.8,00,000/-  in installments. The agreement was also executed between the parties, this fact is clear from Ex.C-3 loan agreement placed on the record. The EMI is Rs.2417/-  and number of Ems is 240 months  and rate of interest as 7.5% per annum and amount of loan is Rs.2,40,000/- as per loan agreement executed between the parties. Assignment Form was  also filled in by the complainant vide ExC-8 on the record. This fact is admitted that the sanctioned loan amount was of Rs.2,40,000/- and start from 01.02.2007 vide Ex.C-9. We have also perused the document Ex.C-10 the transaction listing from 01.01.2003 to 10.08.2021 on the record. We have perused all the documents placed on record of the complainant as well as of the OP.
6. From perusal of entire record on the file, we are of the view that the this fact is not disputed that loan agreement executed between the parties. Both parties are bound by the same and no one wriggle out from the its liability. In the terms and conditions we cannot add or subtract therein.  The OP under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act 2002 before Ld. District Magistrate Ropar in the year 2018 , the complainant not join the said proceedings. The application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act  was duly served upon the complainant but complainant neither join the proceedings nor challenged the order passed by District Magistrate.  It appears that complainant defaulted himself. The complainant without challenging the order of District Magistrate opted to approach this Commission after delay of almost two years.  OP also issued notices dated 31.01.2012 and 17.06.2014 to complainant to make the  payment but complainant failed to do so despite receipt of said notices. It appears that the complainant intentionally not to make the payment of loan . If loan agreement executed between the parties then each party is liable to pay the loan amount as per terms and conditions of the agreement and no one wriggle out from the same.  We have also perused the letter written by the complainant to Manager of OP Ex.OP-3 on the record. In this letter, it has been specifically mentioned by the complainant that due to accident, he is unable to pay the installments and he would deposit the half installment in April or half in May  and he also demanded time period till 31^st May 2008 to deposit the loan installments with OP. But from perusal of record, it has come to my knowledge that the complainant failed to deposit the loan installments with OP as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement executed between the parties. OP also sent notice through registered post to complainant for deposit the loan amount vide Ex.OP-9 on the record.  This notice Ex.OP-9 is also received by the complainant, this fact is clear from perusal of postal receipts which is placed on the record at page 100 of the case file. This fact is admitted that the loan amount of Rs.2,40,000/- sanctioned to the complainant. The terms of the loan agreement with interest @ 7.5% floating interest per annum compounded monthly and complainant was required to repay the same within 240 monthly installments.  The complainant started committing defaults in making the payment of the monthly installments to OP and failed to discharge contractual liability towards OP as agreed by him in the loan agreement. We have also perused the status report  for the month ending 31.08.2021 as Ex.OP-6  and detailed listing pertaining to the loan account of the complainant up to month ending 31.08.2021 as Ex.OP-7. From perusal of record, it has transpired that the OP many times requested complainant to regularize the loan account but he failed to do so. After that, the OP was constrained to issue demand notice dated 31.10.2012 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act 2002  whereby loan account of the complainant was declared as non-performing asset and he was called upon to repay the entire loan amount along with other charges but complainant failed to comply with the same. The complainant also failed to challenge the order of District Magistrate Ropar.
7. In view of the our above discussion, we are of the view that the complainant failed to pay the loan amount to OP as agreed in the loan agreement. The complainant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement which is executed between the parties. We have also perused the status report of the loan amount and letter written by the complainant Ex.OP-3 on the record. This letter written by the complainant himself and he cannot deny the same. As such, from perusal of this it appears that complainant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act  was duly served upon the complainant but complainant neither join the proceedings nor challenged the order passed by District Magistrate.  It appears that complainant defaulted himself. The complainant without challenging the order of District Magistrate opted to approach this Commission after delay of almost two years.
8. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case we find no force in the submissions of the complainant, as such, we hereby dismiss the complaint of the complainant for not complying the terms and conditions of the loan agreement which is executed between the parties. Parties are left to bear their own cost.
9. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

 

Dated :24.3.2023

                                                                   (Kuljit Singh)

                                                                     President

 

                                                               (Rakesh Kumar Gupta)    

          Member