DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No: 769 of 2009. Date of Institution: 08.09.2009 Date of Decision: 29.09.2015
- Himanshu Juneja s/o Sh. O.P.Juneja, R/o Flat No.701, The Close North, Nirvana Country, Sector 49-50, Gurgaon-122001.
- Ekta Jain w/o Himanshu Juneja s/o Sh. O.P.Juneja, R/o Flat No.701, The Close North, Nirvana Country, Sector 49-50, Gurgaon-122001.
……Complainants.
Versus
ICICI Bank Ltd having its office at Sector 14, Gurgaon-122001 through its Managing Director/Authorized person.
..Opposite party
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER
SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sanjay Pahuja, Adv for the complainants.
Sh.Ajay Singh, Adv for the OP.
ORDER SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainants, in brief, is that they had availed Home Loan on 28.12.2007 vide Loan A/c No.LBFDB00001691119 from the OP Bank for purchase of an apartment No.701, Tower-16, The Close North, Nirwana Country, Sector 49-50, Gurgaon. They got sanctioned home loan of Rs.35 Lacs at the floating rate of interest of 10.5 % out of which approx. Rs. 29 Lacs were disbursed to them and the remaining amount was to be disbursed as and when demanded by the builder –Unitech. The tenure of the loan was 20 years. The complainants were to pay Pre-EMI as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and the tenure of the loan was to start from the date of payment of first EMI and the complainants started making payment of Pre-EMI from 28.12.2007. It has been further alleged that opposite party forced the complainants to obtain insurance policies for home as well as for health in the sum of Rs.1,27,000/-. The floating rate of interest was lowered down by RBI but even then benefits were not given in favour of the complainants. The complainants wanted to pay the entire loan but the opposite party refused to accept the same on the ground that there was no policy to receive the advance EMIs. The complainants transferred the loan to Axis Bank but the opposite party has charged a sum of Rs.66,000/- on account pre payment penalty wrongly and illegally and thus, the opposite party was deficient in providing services to the complainants. They prayed that the opposite party be directed to refund Rs.66,000/- with interest and to return original receipts which were issued by builder Unitech and to pay compensation. The complaint is supported with an affidavit of complainant Himanshu Juneja and the documents placed on file.
2 OP in its written reply has alleged that actually loan amount sanctioned was Rs.36,27,470-/ and not Rs.35,000,00/-as alleged by the complainants. An amount of Rs.30,48,380/- was disbursed by the opposite party to the complainant at the floating rate of interest @ 11.50 % p.a. The complainants themselves have applied and accepted the insurance policies. The officials of the opposite party demanded pre-payment charges as per the agreed terms and conditions and cannot be said to be in violation of any terms and conditions. It is denied that the opposite party increased rate of interest or PLR arbitrarily. The opposite party returned all original documents. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on file carefully.
4 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the ground that complainants got home loan sanctioned to the tune of Rs.35 Lacs from OP at the floating rate of interest 10.5 % out of which apprxo. Rs.29 Lacs were disbursed and the remaining amount was to be disbursed as and when demanded by the builder-Unitech and the complainants have to pay the EMI as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and tenure of the loan was 20 years and the tenure of the loan was to start from the date of payment of the first EMI and the complainants started making payment of pre-EMI from 28.12.2007. It has been alleged that the opposite party forced the complainants to obtain insurance policies for home as well as for health in the sum of Rs.1,27,000/-. Learned counsel for the complainants has also argued that floating rate of interest was lowered down by the RBI but even then the benefits were not transferred in favour of the complainants. It was further argued that complainants wanted to pay the entire loan amount but the opposite party refused to accept the same on the pretext that there was no policy to receive the advance EMIs. The complainants wanted to shift the loan to Axis Bank but the complainants have to pay a sum of Rs.66,000/- on account of pre-payment penalty to the opposite party On the aforesaid allegations the complainants prayed to get the refund of Rs.66,000/- with interest and also to return original receipts which were issued by builder-Unitech besides compensation.
5 However, as per the contention of the opposite party the actual loan amount was Rs.36,27,470/- out of which Rs.30,48,380/- were paid to the complainants and the floating rate of interest agreed upon was 11.50 % p.a. Learned counsel for the opposite party has also contended that the insurance policies were obtained by the complainants themselves for their benefits in order to secure loan and the rate of interest has been charged as per the RBI directions from time to time applicable to the floating rate of interest. Pre-payment charges has been charged in terms of clause No18 of the agreement and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party on any count.
6 Therefore, after going through the contents of the complaint as well as written reply it emerges that the complainants have not mentioned the correct amount which was sanctioned and disbursed to them. The main grudge of the complainants is that a sum of Rs.66,000/- has been charged from them on account of pre-payment of the loan. However, there is nothing on the file to show that opposite party was not entitled to charge pre-payment charge in the event of repaying the loan amount before the scheduled date. The argument that pre-payment charges has been abolished by the RBI is devoid of merit because no such notification/circular has been placed on file in order to come to the conclusion as to whether pre-payment charges has been abolished and if abolished since when.
7 The complainants have prayed for issuance of direction to the opposite party to return original receipts issued by Unitech Builder but there is no evidence on the file that Unitech ever issued receipt in favour of the complainants which were deposited by the complainants with the opposite party. If the opposite party have disbursed the loan amount in favour of Unitech-Builder the same has been reflected in the statement of account of the complainant. No other argument worth mentioning has been advanced in order to come to the conclusion that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and as such in our opinion there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and thus, we dismiss the present complaint. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
29.09.2015 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
