Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 33.
Instituted on : 16.01.2017.
Decided on : 24.01.2019.
Satish Chhikara s/o Jai Narayan Chhikara, R/o H.No.1317, Sec 6, Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana, Age 40 years, Mb. No.9034043851.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
General Manager, India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd., 400-401-402, 2nd Floor Model Town, above HDFC Bank, Rohtak.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Jagjit Singh Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant took loan of Rs.12999738.94/- in individual borrowers capacity against his property bearing H.No.1317, Sector-6, Bahadurgarh. That in the month of September 2016 the complainant approached the respondent for clearance of his loan amount but at that time the respondent with malafide intention added 5% foreclosure charges i.e. Rs.649986.95/- plus service tax @ 14% i.e. Rs.90998.17/- plus Swachh Bharat Cess @ 0.50% i.e. Rs.3249.93/- and Krishan Kalyan Cess @ 0.50% i.e. Rs.3249.93/- total amounting Rs.747484.98/- was added by the respondent in the principal loan amount. That the act of opposite party is highly illegal null and void and against the guidelines of reserve Bank of India. That complainant cleared the respondent loan amount by demand draft no.401455 issued by Axis Bank Ltd., amounting to Rs.13842736/- including the alleged amount of Rs.747484.98/-. That respondent illegally charged the amount of Rs.747484.98/- from the complainant and as such respondent shall be liable to repay this amount to the complainant including interest. That complainant requested the opposite party to pay the alleged amount but the same was refused by the opposite party on dated 14.11.2016. That complainant issued a legal notice dated 15.11.2016 to the respondent but the respondent refused to accept the notice. That the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to pay the claim of Rs.747484.98/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that in November 2015 the complainant alongwith other borrowers approached the OP for grant of loan facility to the tune of Rs.1,32,60000/-. That as per the agreed terms and conditions of the loan agreement the said loan facility was disbursed on floating reference rate. That the floating rate of interest is linked to the PRIME LENDING RATE(PLR) of the OP. Therefore, the rate of interest is bound to change whenever there is a change in the PLR of the OP which would in turn, lead to changes in the tenure in which the loan has to be repaid or the amount of Equated Monthly installment(EMI). That the loan was disbursed to the complainant in the Bank Account maintained in the name of M/s Chhikara & Sons, which used the said funds for business expansion/commercial purpose. It is denied that the opposite party illegally charged any charges against the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. It is averred that the rate of interest is higher for commercial loans as compared to home loans. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed against the answering opposite party.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. Counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R9 and closed his evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the dispute in the present case is that at the time of clearance of loan amount by the complainant, the respondent with malafide intention added 5% foreclosure charges i.e. Rs.649986.95/- upon the complainant alongwith service tax etc. On the other hand contention of ld. counsel for the OP is that the loan disbursed to the complainant was used for business expansion/commercial purpose and the rate of interest is higher for commercial loans as compared to home loans and that the forclosure charges have been levied upon the complainant as per guidelines of the RBI.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the cause of action arose at the time of closing of account hence the use of commercial purpose does not arise. Moreover as per circular No.NBH(ND)/DRS/Misc. Circular N0.17/2015-16 July 22,2016 placed on record as Ex.C6, it is clearly mentioned that: “All floating rate term loans sanctioned to individual borrowers by the Housing Finance Companies(HFCs) are exempted from any foreclosure charges/prepayment penalties. Hence the foreclosure charges have been illegally levied upon the complainant at the time of closing of account and the opposite parties are liable to refund the same to the complainant.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and it is directed that opposite parties shall refund the amount of Rs.649987/-(Rupees six lac forty nine thousand nine hundred eighty seven only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 16.01.2017 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
11. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
24.01.2018.
......................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
…………………………..
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
