Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/275/2017

Ajay Partap Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

India Bulls Housing Fiance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Amarbir Dhaliwal, Adv.

28 May 2018

ORDER

   STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	275 of 2017
Date of Institution	10.11.2017
Date of Decision	28.05.2018

 

Ajay Partap Singh S/o Sh. Varinder Singh r/o H.No.1678, Pushpac Society, Sector 49-B, Chandigarh.

                                        …..Appellant/Complainant

                                Versus

1.     India Bulls Housing Finance Limited, M-62-63, 1st Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi..

2)   India Bulls Housing Finance Limited, SCO No. 337-338, Ground Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

                            …..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:             JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                             MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Amarbir S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellant/ Complainant.  

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.09.2017, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it dismissed Consumer Complaint bearing No.406 of 2016.

2.           The facts, in brief, are that  the complainant took a Housing Loan of Rs.1,08,15,910/- @ 12% from the Opposite Parties on 14.05.2014. Copy of the sanction letter is Annexure C-1. It was stated that after due passage of time, the complainant approached Canara Bank for borrowing a Home Loan, as the rate of interest charged by them was much lower than the Opposite Parties. The said Bank agreed to sanction a Home Loan to the complainant, therefore, he approached the Opposite Parties and requested them to accept the full and final payment of the said loan, for which, the Opposite Parties had charged Rs.2,38,821/- from the complainant towards foreclosure charges vide letter dated 24.09.2015. It was further stated that the complainant made repeated requests vide emails (Annexures C-4 to C-7) and legal notice (Annexure C-8) to the Opposite Parties to refund the aforesaid amount, but to no avail. It was further stated that due to the aforesaid act and conduct of the Opposite Parties, the complainant suffered a lot, which amounted to deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.         In their written statement, the Opposite Parties, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, have stated that the present complaint filed by Sh.Ajay Partap Singh, whereas, the said loan was availed by Sh.Ajay Partap Singh, Meetika and APS Retail Pvt. Ltd. but the co-borrowers have not been made party to the complaint and, as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties charged the foreclosure charges as per terms & conditions of the loan agreement and governing guidelines issued by the National Housing Bank. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.           The complainant, filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite Parties, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties. 

5.           The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.           After hearing Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above. 

7.           Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.           We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.           Counsel for the appellant/complainant has submitted that the Forum failed to appreciate that the complainant and his wife had put their signatures on various documents in the capacity of Director of the Private Limited Company as guarantor’s. He further submitted that the said Company does not have any relation with the loan in dispute, as the property mortgaged in favour of the said home loan is in the personal name of the complainant’s wife Smt.Meetika and the instalments qua the said loan are being paid from the account of the proprietorship firm of the complainant and not from the account of the said private limited company. He further submitted that the Forum has wrongly come to the conclusion that the name of the borrowers are mentioned as Ajay Pratap Singh, Meetika and M/s APS Retail Pvt. Ltd. (on page No.12 of the loan agreement dated 13.06.2014) – Annexure A-14. However, the Forum has failed to take into account the loan application form dated 16.04.2014, in which, it did not mention private limited company as co-applicant – Annexure A-15, therefore, the Opposite Parties wrongly mentioned the name of the said private limited company as borrower on page No.12 of the loan agreement. He prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order. 

10.          Counsel for the respondents/Opposite Parties submitted that the Forum rightly passed the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant.

11.          The core point for consideration before us, is as to whether, the respondents/Opposite Parties rightly charged foreclosure charges from the appellant/complainant. The answer, to this, question is in the negative. The allegation of the complainant is that when he approached the Canara Bank for borrowing a housing loan, he came to know that the rate of interest was much lower than the Opposite Parties and, therefore, he applied to the Opposite Parties for full and final repayment of loan, for which, the Opposite Parties charged an amount of Rs.2,38,821/- towards pre-closure charges vide letter dated 24.09.2015 (Annexure C-3). It is the admitted fact that the appellant/complainant took a housing loan amounting to Rs.1,08,15,910/- from the Opposite Parties. A bare perusal of Loan Sanction Letter dated 14.05.2014 (Annexure C-1) clearly reveals that the loan was sanctioned by the Opposite Parties to Ajay Partap Singh because the name of the applicant ‘AJAY PARTAP SINGH’ is clearly shown in the said letter and Name of the Co-applicant is clearly shown as ‘APS RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED, MEETIKA’. It is also true that all the pages of the said sanction letter was duly signed by the complainant and the co-applicant/guarantor (i.e. his wife) in the capacity of Director of APS Retails Pvt. Ltd. Annexure C-2 is a copy of letter dated 24.09.2015.  Further, it is observed that the said Company does not have any relation whatsoever with the loan in dispute as the property mortgaged in favour of the said home loan is in the personal name of the complainant’s wife Smt.Meetika. From this document, it is proved that the Opposite Parties intimated the complainant i.e. Sh.Ajay Partap Singh regarding foreclosure charges of Rs.2,38,821.99. Moreover, in the Loan Agreement (at page No.71 of the file), in the column ‘name of the borrower’, it has been mentioned the name of the complainant, Meetika and APS Retail Private Limited.   It is also evident from Loan Application Form (Annexure OP-2 Colly.) that the name of the applicant is mentioned as ‘Ajay Partap Singh’ & co-applicant is mentioned as ‘Meetika’ and both the employer/business name & address is mentioned as M/s APS Retails Pvt. Ltd., SCO 1124-1125, G.F., Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. So, it is clear from Loan Application Form & Loan Sanctioned Letter that the loan was availed by the complainant and APS Retail Pvt. Ltd. acted in the legal capacity of guarantor in the said loan and not as borrower.  Further, on perusal of circular letters dated 14.08.2014 and 03.09.2014 (Annexure OP-1 colly.) from the National Housing Bank to all registered housing finance companies, it is observed that “foreclosure charges/pre-payment penalties shall not be applicable to the individual borrowers.” In the present case, it is clearly proved that the loan was taken in the capacity as individual borrower, therefore, the respondents/Opposite Parties wrongly charged as foreclosure charges. So, we are of the view that the Forum erred in dismissing the complaint and, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

12.          For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, filed by the appellant/complainant is allowed. The impugned order, passed by the Forum, is set aside. The respondents/Opposite are jointly and severally directed as under :-

i)            To refund the amount of Rs.2,38,821/- alongwith interest @8% p.a. to the appellant/complainant from the date of foreclosure of the amount till the date of realization.

ii)           To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.20,000/- to the appellant/complainant.

iii)         The payment of aforesaid amount mentioned at sr.no.(i), shall be made, within a period of 02 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) shall carry penal interest @10% p.a., instead of @8% p.a., from the date of default, and interest @8% p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii), from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.

13.          Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.          The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                         

May  28^th, 2018.                                

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER 

 

                                           (PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 rb