| Final Order / Judgement | ORDER 23.04.2024. Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member - The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging the deficiency in service on the part of OP. The brief facts of the case are that complainant availed the loan facility from OP on 07.10.2005 in the shape of two loans bearing no.HDLH00005776 for a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- and second loan bearing no.HDLH00000176 for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-. It is further alleged by the complainant that the aforesaid loan was to be repaid through monthly installment of Rs.25,112/- and Rs.18,632/- respectively. It is further alleged by the complainant that he successfully paid 27 equal monthly installments in both the loan accounts.
- In the month of December 2007, the OP arbitrarily raised a demand of Rs.29,80,000/- and asked the complainant to pay the entire amount in one go. The complainant requested OP to adjust the EMIs already paid against the loans in question while closing the aforesaid loan accounts. The OP instead of adjusting the paid EMIs pressurize the complainant to repay the entire loan amount of Rs.29,80,000/- and further assured him that after the repayment of the entire loan amount the EMI would be adjusted. It is alleged by the complainant that on various occasions he approached the officials of the OP and requested them to adjust the paid EMI and refund a sum of Rs.11,81,088/- excessively retained by them even after receiving the entire loan amount in one go. Complainant also issue legal notice through his counsel to OP thereby calling it to refund the excess amount but all in vain. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the OP complainant approached this commission for redressal of his grievance.
- Notice of the complaint was sent to OP. OP filed its WS thereby denying any deficiency in service on its part. It is further stated that two loans were sanction and disbursed in favour of the complainant against the loan A/c bearing no.HDLH00000176 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on 31.10.2002 and second loan A/c bearing no.HDLH00005776 for a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- on 09.08.2005 with floating rate of interest. A top up of Rs.3,04,656/- was added to loan account no. HDLH00000176, hence the unpaid loan amount was Rs.18,00,000/- and Rs.13,04,656/-. It is further stated that in the loan account no. HDLH00000176 63 monthly installments were received out of which 3 got bounce for the period from 01.12.2002 to 01.12.2007. In the loan account no. HDLD00005776 26 monthly installments were received out of which 3 got bounce from 07.10.2005 to 07.12.2007. It is further stated that the OP company had never raised anu demand of Rs.29,80,000/- from the complainant and compelled him to repay the loan amount in one go. It is further stated that complainant approached OP and request for the foreclosure of the loans in question and as such on the request of complainant foreclosure letter was generated and a a total sum of Rs.29,80,000/- paid by complainant against the aforesaid outstanding two loan and the mortgage property papers were also handed over to complainant against the payment made. It is further stated that the OP bank has collected the foreclosure amount from the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement agreed between the parties, hence no cause of action accrued in favour of the complainant and against the OP company for filing the present complaint, hence present complaint be dismissed with cost having no merits.
- Rejoinder to the WS of OP filed by complainant thereby denying the averments made in the WS. It is further stated by the complainant that out of the top up loan of Rs.3,04,656/- he had repaid a sum of Rs.1,04,656/-, hence the total loan amount against the loan account no. HDLH00000176 was Rs.12,00,000/-. Complainant filed evidence by way of his affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of his complaint.
- Despite opportunity OP failed to file its evidence by way of affidavit.
- Written arguments filed by both the parties.
- We have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant Ms. Shubham Mahajan and Sh. Shonit Kumar counsel for OP and have perused the record.
- Complainant has placed on record the copy of saving account, thereby reflecting the EMIs paid by him against the two loans in question, he had also placed on record the copy of cheque dated 31.11.2007 and 01.12.2007, thereby depositing the entire payment of Rs.29,80,000/- to OP against the loans in question. He has also placed on record the copy of legal notice dated 17.10.2008 and 28.11.2008 in support of his contention.
On the contrary OP has placed on record copy of welcome letters, copy of foreclosure letter dated 29.08.2007 in support of its contention. - Admittedly, the complainant had availed loan facility from OP in the form of two loans bearing no.HDLH00000176 for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on 31.10.2002 and second loan bearing no.HDLH00005776 for a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- on 09.08.2005 with floating rate of interest. A top up of Rs.3,04,656/- was added to loan account no. HDLH00000176, hence the unpaid loan amount was Rs.18,00,000/- and Rs.13,04,656/-. The complainant has averred in his rejoinder to the WS of OP that out of the top up loan of Rs.3,04,656/- he had returned Rs.1,04,656/- to OP bank, however, complainant failed to place on record any documentary evidence in respect to the return of the top up loan amount of Rs.1,04,656/- to OP.
Admittedly, the first loan was availed by complainant on 03.10.2002 and same was foreclosed by him on 29.08.2007, similarly he has availed the second loan and top up loan on 09.08.2005 and has also foreclosed the same on 29.08.2007. The OP has placed on record the welcome letter thereby clearly mentioning the terms of the loan A/c no. HDLH00000176 in which it is clearly mentioned that the complainant has availed the first loan on 01.12.2002 at 18.97% and the original tenure of the aforesaid loan is 120 months. Similarly, the OP has also placed on record the details of loan account no. HDLH00005776 in which it is clearly mentioned that the complainant availed the second loan on 9.08.2005 at 16.39% and the original tenure of the second loan is 156 months. Admittedly, the complainant had paid 63 EMIs of first loan account and 26 EMIs of second loan account and thereafter both the loan accounts were foreclosed. We have carefully gone through the foreclosure letter dated 29.08.2007 in which it is clearly mentioned that the foreclosure letter was generated on the request of complainant, hence the contention of the complainant that OP under pressure and coercion compelled him to repay the entire loan amounts in one go has no legs to stand. - The two foreclosure letters clearly mentioned the outstanding dues as well as the overdue installment and other details in respect to the loan accounts in question. The relevant portion of the foreclosure letter is reproduced as under:-
Total loan amount Rs.18,00,000/- | Valid till 22.09.2007 | Outstanding principle | -
| Overdue Installments | -
| Prepayment charges | -
| Cheque under presentation | -
| Bounced PDC and penalty charges | -
| Accrued interest | -
| Excess interest | -
| Total foreclosure amount | -
|
Total loan amount Rs.12,00,000/- | Valid till 22.09.2007 | Outstanding principle | -
| Overdue Installments | -
| Prepayment charges | -
| Cheque under presentation | -
| Bounced PDC and penalty charges | -
| Accrued interest | -
| Excess interest | -
| Total foreclosure amount | -
|
- The bare perusal of the aforesaid foreclosure letters and the detail mentioned therein clarifies that on 29.08.2007 there was a total outstanding of Rs. 29,79,794/- against the two loan accounts in question. The complainant has placed on record the statement of his saving bank account thereby depicting the EMIs paid by him against the loans in question but he failed to place on record any documentary evidence to justify his claim of Rs. 11,81,088/- as alleged in the complaint. Moreover
the complainant has failed to place on record any documentary evidence which clarify that the complainant is bound to pay only 63 EMIs against the loan account no. HDLH00000176 and 26 EMIs against loan account no. HDLH00005776 whereas the OP has placed on record the welcome letter which clarifies that complainant has to repay 120 EMIs against loan account no. HDLH00000176 and 156 EMIs against loan account no. HDLH00005776, hence, at the time of foreclosure of the loan account there were an outstanding of 57 EMIs to be repaid against first loan and 130 EMIs has to be repaid against the second loan account, hence, as per the foreclosure letter OP has rightly calculated the foreclosure amount as per the loan agreement agreed between the parties and recover a sum of Rs. 29,80,000/- on account of foreclosure amount from complainant. - In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that due to lack of documentary evidence complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP as alleged in the complaint. We therefore find no merit in the present complaint, same is hereby dismissed.
- Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry. Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.
Pronounced on 23.04.2024 Sanjay Kumar Nipur Chandna Rajesh President Member Member | |
