Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/364/2014

P.V.Srinivas - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.V.Balaji

15 Nov 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   25.08.2014

                                                                        Date of Order :   15.11.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

                                  PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                                                       TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

                           DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.364/2014

                                                             WEDNESDAY THIS 15^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

 

P.V. Srinivas,

S/o. P.S. Venkatraman,

Rep. by his power of attorney of

P.S. Venkatraman,

182, North Usman Road,

Flat No.F-1, Shridhana,

T.Nagar,

Chennai 600 017.                                                 Complainant

                                                          Vs

 

1.  The HDFC Ltd.,

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,

II Floor, ITC Centre,

760, Anna Salai,

Chennai 600 002.

 

2.  The Managing Director,

Sidharth Foundations and Housing Ltd.,

No.14 (old NO.124/1), G.N. Chetty Road,

(Off.) Habibullah Road, T.Nagar,

Chennai 600 017.                                                              Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for Complainant         :   M/s. V.Balaji & A.Sermaraj          

Counsel for opposite party-1   :   M/s. S.Elambharathi & others     

Counsel for opposite party-2   :   Exparte

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.67,069/- with interest and also to paya sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.15000/- towards cost of the complaint.

 1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that  the complainant availed housing loan from the 1^st opposite party for purchase of flat No.A-307 on the third floor of the residential complex Sidharth Next with super buildup area of 991 sq. ft. along with 407 sq. ft. of UDS with exclusive covered car parking from the 2^nd opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party sanctioned a residence home loan of Rs.30 lacs with variable rate of interest.   The first EMI shall be payable on 1.11.2013 and the last EMI shall be 31.10.2033 at the rate of Rs.30,255/- p.m.   The home loan agreement was entered between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party on 12.12.2011.      The complainant further state that on 9.12.2011 the 1^st opposite party disbursed the first installment of Rs.16,29,968/- in favour of the 2^nd opposite party without the consent and approval of the complainant.     The complainant further state that on 12.12.2011 the 2^nd opposite party is entitled only for Rs.15,62,899/- i.e. excess amount of Rs.67,069/- was disbursed without consent  of the complainant before entering into the agreement.    Even after repeated notice and reminders the opposite parties gave evasive reply.    As such the act of  the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2.    The brief averments in Written Version of  the  1^st  opposite party is  as follows:

The  1^st opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The 1^st opposite party state that as per letter dated 1.11.2011 the 1^st opposite party was requested to disburse the entire loan amount of Rs.30 lacs to the 2^nd opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party after due verification disbursed a sum of Rs.16,29,968/- as first installment.     Further the 1^st opposite party state that  it is usual practice to prepare cheque well in advance since the customers would have already committed to the Developer to make payment as per the construction agreement entered between them.   The cheque was prepared on 9.12.2011 and the loan agreement was signed on 12.12.2011 and the cheque was issued only on 12.12.2011.  The complainant’s liability to pay interest amount has commenced only from 12.12.2011 and not from 9.12.2011.  Hence there shall be no loss arise to the complainant.    There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. Inspite of service of notice the 2^nd opposite party is called absent and set exparte.

4.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 marked.  Proof affidavit of 1^st opposite party filed and Ex.B1 marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party.

5.   The points for the consideration is: 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.67,069/- with interest  as prayed for ?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.15,000/- as prayed for?

 

6.          Heard both sides.Perused the records (viz) complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents.The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant availed housing loan from the 1^st opposite party for purchase of flat No.A-307 on the third floor of the residential complex Sidharth Next with super buildup area of 991 sq. ft. along with 407 sq. ft. of UDS with exclusive covered car parking from the 2^nd opposite party.The 1^st opposite party sanctioned a residence home loan of Rs.30 lacs with variable rate of interest.The first EMI shall be payable on 1.11.2013 and the last EMI shall be 31.10.2033 at the rate of Rs.30,255/- p.m.The home loan agreement was entered between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party on 12.12.2011.Ex.A2 is alleged loan agreement is a part of the document complainant has not stated anything about the full amount.The law is well settled that the part of the agreement shall not be taken into consideration.The learned counsel for the complainant further contended that on 9.12.2011 the 1^st opposite party disbursed the first installment of Rs.16,29,968/- in favour of the 2^nd opposite party without the consent and approval of the complainant.But on a careful perusal of the entire records the complainant has not filed any document or agreement with the builder to show the first installment amountof Rs.15,62,899/-.Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that on 12.12.2011 the 2^nd opposite party is entitled only for Rs.15,62,899/- i.e. excess amount of Rs.67,069/- was disbursed without consent of the complainant before entering into the agreement.Even after repeated notice and reminders the opposite parties gave evasive reply.As per Ex.A6 & Ex.A7 the opposite party denied their liability and directed the complainant to seek remedy from the 2^nd opposite party.But on a careful perusal of the records it is seen that after obtaining the loan the complainant purchased the flat for a sum of Rs.30 lacs.There is no whisper regarding the disbursement amount by the 1^st opposite party.

7.     The contention of the 1^st opposite party is that as per the letter dated 1.11.2011 the 1^st opposite party was requested to disburse the entire loan amount of Rs.30 lacs to the 2^nd opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party after due verification disbursed a sum of Rs.16,29,968/- as first installment, at the time of stage wise construction.  The complainant suppressed the said fact and filed this case with false allegation of payment of excess amount of Rs.67,069/- without filing any agreement of sale or construction.   Further the leaned counsel for the 1^st opposite party contended that  it is the usual practice to prepare cheque well in advance since the customers would have already committed to the Developer to make payment as per the construction agreement entered between them.   The cheque was prepared on 9.12.2011 and the loan agreement was signed on 12.12.2011 and the cheque was issued only on 12.12.2011.  The complainant’s liability to pay interest amount has commenced only from 12.12.2011 and not from 9.12.2011.  Hence there shall be no loss arise to the complainant.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the  complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint and the point is answered accordingly. 

            In the result the complaint is dismissed.  No cost

          Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 15^th day  of  November 2017.  

 MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 1.11.2011  - Copy of letter of the complainant.

Ex.A2- 12.12.2011         - Copy of home loan agreement.

Ex.A3- 9.1.2014    - Copy of email with scan copy.

Ex.A4- 20.2.2014  - Copy of email by the 1^st opp. party.

Ex.A5- 27.5.2014  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A6- 10.6.2014  - Copy of reply by 1^st opp. party.

Ex.A7- 24.6.2014  - Copy of reply by 2^nd opp. party.

Ex.A8- 2.12.2011  - Copy of General power of attorney.

 

Opposite parties’ side document:    

 

Ex.B1- 1.11.2011  - Copy of letter issued by the complainant.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.