ORDER                          Dated:
24-10-2016
Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

1.      The complainant filed this complaint on 21.08.2009 and alleged that
on 14.12.2007 a home loan was sanctioned by OP for a sum of Rs
30,50,000/-  to the complainant but OP issued a cheque of Rs.
29,94,944/- on 19.3.2008 which was short of Rs.55,056/- with
installment of Rs. 30,451/-. Complainant was making the payment as per
the agreed installment. OP charged the installment from first day of
every calendar month so complainant contacted OP to change the date of
installment to 10th of each month but it was not agreed by OPs. Hence
complainant prayed that OP be directed to make the payment of Rs.
60,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as cost of litigation. This
complaint was again amended on 22.07.2010 and complainant alleged that
cheque of loan amount was prepared on 31.01.2008 but delivered on
19.03.2008 to the complainant. It was further alleged that OP charged
Rs. 50,000/- for three insurance policies and its premium amount of
Rs. 39,294/- and  Rs. 5,353/- deducted from the sanctioned loan amount
. These policies were not directly concerned with the home loan.
2.      In reply, OP admitted that  loan amount of Rs. 30,50,000/- was
sanctioned by OP  and amount of  Rs. 29,94,944/- was paid vide cheque
dated 31.1.2008 and the amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been paid to ICICI
Prudential LIC ltd vide cheque dated 31.1.2008 and Rs. 5056/- was
adjusted towards other dues including processing charges etc. Thus an
entire amount of Rs. 30,50,000/- has been duly disbursed  to the
complainant. It is further stated that as per the agreed terms and
conditions the EMIs were to be paid on 1st day of each month
accordingly EMIs were paid on due date. OPs denied rest of the
allegations made in the complaint and stated that there is no
deficiency on the part of the OP and the complaint is dismissed.
3.      The complainant   has filed rejoinder to the reply and explained
that the objections filed by OP are baseless. In support of his
complaint complainant filed affidavit of Sh. Ramesh Chand Shastri (her
attorney)   along with documents.
4.      In support of reply, OP filed affidavits of Sh. Sanjay Sharma
(Senior Officer Legal) and Sh. Santosh Singh (Authorised
Representative).
5.      Both the parties filed their written arguments.
6.      We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by the
parties and their written and oral arguments.  In this case points to
be considered are as under:-
(a) Whether complainant is a consumer?
(b) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
( c) Relief?
7.      OP admitted that loan amount was sanctioned to the complainant as
alleged by the complainant , therefore, complainant is a consumer.
8.      Complainant’s affidavit did not disclosed that the insurance
policies of ICICI Prudential LIC Ltd Medical Healthcare Policy of
Shalini gupta and Rajratan Gupta were not taken by the them.  It is
simply alleged that amount of these policies were wrongly deducted
from the sanctioned loan amount.  The affidavits of Sh. Sanjay Sharma
and  Sh. Santosh Singh on behalf of OP clarify that amount of Rs.
50,000/- has been paid to ICICI Prudential LIC Ltd towards the policy
taken by the complainant.  OP filed letter of the complainant to the
OP regarding instruction of payment of insurance premium wherein
complainant authorized OP to make the payment of insurance premium of
Rs. 50,000/- with the ICICI Prudential LIC Ltd. During the arguments ,
learned counsel for the complainant stated that the signature on this
above letter were not signed by the complainant and also opposed
initial signature of the complainant on page 9 of the loan agreement
as well as declaration of the complainant as well as Electronic
Clearing Service Mandate Form but complainant has failed to file the
hand writing expert’s evidence in this regard of above these
signatures.  In absence of the report from handwriting expert
regarding these forged signatures we are not in a position to decide
the question of forged signatures and forgery if committed by the OP.
It is pertinent to mention herein that allegation of  offence of fraud
and forgery cannot be decided by this forum due to lack of
jurisdiction.
9.      Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of
the considered opinion that the premium of insurance policies were
deducted as per the authorization letter from the complainant.
Therefore, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the
OP. Hence, this complaint is dismissed. Both the parties will bear
their own cost.
10.      Copy of the order made available to the parties as per law. File
be consigned to record room.

    Announced on ……….