DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 179 of 02-05-2011

Decided on : 07-07-2011

1. Chaman Lal aged about 50 years S/o Sh. Sohan Lal

2. Parveen Bansal aged about 46 years W/o Chaman Lal

   Both residents of H. No. 192, Street No. 4, Phase III, Vishal Nagar, Bathinda.

..... Complainants

Versus

1. India Bulls Housing Finance Limited, Near Hanuman Chowk, Building of Apolo Hospital, Guru Kashi Marg, Bathinda, through its Branch Head/Branch Manager/Loan Manager.

2. Reserve Bank of India, Central Office Building, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400001 through its Governor/Authorised Signatory.

   ..... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Naresh Garg, counsel for the complainant

For the Opposite parties : Exparte.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). In brief, the case of the complainants is that they applied for loan with opposite party No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 13.00 Lacs and against security, the complainants equitable mortgaged their property with opposite party No. 1 by depositing the original sale deed which is still lying with opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 at the time of releasing the loan amount took the signatures of complainants on blank form, vouchers and agreements with the assurance that the same would be filled as per regulations and directions of opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 1 made a EMI i.e. Equally Monthly Installments to the tune of Rs. 21,620/- and told the complainants that this amount of EMI could be deposited within the entire month on any date and it would not be changed without the consent of the complainants/loanee. The opposite party No. 1 at the time of releasing the loan in the month of March, 2007 issued the loan amount of Rs. 12,70,112/- only to the complainants instead of Rs. 13,00,000/-. The opposite party No. 1 told the complainants that as per their income returns this amount of Rs. 12,70,112/- only sanctioned by their office. The complainants deposited the EMIs regularly w.e.f. 01-05-2007 to 31-03-2011 without any delay. During the said period, the opposite party No. 1 also charged Rs. 895/- and Rs. 2880-/- etc., from time to time in every month with the assurance that this amount would be adjusted in their principal amount as the sanctioned loan is with reducing interest facility. The above said amount of Rs. 895/- and Rs 2880/- etc., also paid by the complainants during relevant months to opposite party No. 1 within that month from first date of the month upto the last date of the month. On 23-04-2011, the complainants received unsigned due notice from the office of opposite party No. 1 with the demand of Rs. 32,991/- against the EMI for the month of April, 2011 to the tune of Rs. 21,620/-. The opposite party No. 1 issued this notice without waiting of 30^th April which was the last date for depositing EMI of April, 2011. The complainants could not pay the amount of Rs. 24,520/- to opposite party No. 1 in the start of month of 'April, 2011 due to some unavoidable circumstances, but the same was deposited vide cheque No. 005927 on 27-04-2011 within the month of April, 2011. The complainants deposited cheque No. 005928 dated 27-04-2011 for the amount of Rs. 24,500/- against the installment of May, 2011. The complainants have already deposited Rs. 11,07,199/- including the installment for the month of May, 2011. The opposite party No. 1 told the complainants that a sum of Rs. 12,59,347.61 is still due against them whereas they have already deposited Rs. 11,07,199/- with opposite party No. 1 against the loan amount of Rs. 12,70,112/-. The opposite party No. 1 issued account statement in which they have shown the loan amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- instead of Rs. 12,70,112/-. The complainants alleged that opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 in connivance with each other enhanced the rate of interest without the knowledge and permission of complainants. The opposite parties have been charging higher rate of interest i.e. 23% instead of 18% and have not given the actual account statement after adjusting the principal amount as the complainants already deposited the much more amount instead of EMI Rs. 21,620/- in every month. The opposite parties issued notice for deposit of installment of EMI alongwith overdue of Rs. 8491/- without waiting the date of end of the month for making the payment of EMI as required according to rule. The complainants alleged that they have paid all the EMI regularly in every month to opposite party No. 1 in time as such, there was no question of any overdue against the complainants. Hence this complaint has been filed by the complainants seeking directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to credit the amount of Rs. 895/- and Rs. 2880/- etc., charged in excess every month shown in the loan account of the complainants; to return the original sale deed and blank cheques obtained by opposite party No. 1 at the time of sanctioning/releasing the loan as security as the complainants are ready to deposit the due balance payment and to pay compensation and cost.

2. Notice of complaint were sent to both the opposite parties i.e. by registered post to opposite party No. 2 and dasti/by hand to opposite party No. 1, but none appeared on their behalf and as such, exparte proceedings were taken against them.

3. The complainant led exparte evidence.

4. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant heard at length and written submissions submitted by the complainant perused.

5. The copy of agreement executed between the parties at the time of sanctioning of loan has not been placed on file by the complainants. The complainants have alleged that opposite No. 1 at the time of releasing the above mentioned loan amount took the signatures of complainants on blank form, vouchers and agreements with the assurance that the same would be filled as per regulations and directions of opposite party No. 2. In the absence of agreement, it could not be ascertained that what terms and conditions were agreed between the parties at the time of sanctioning of loan. The opposite party No. 1 did not appear to contest the complaint despite receipt of dasti notice copy of which has been signed by one “Sunil Nandhadani.”, in token of receipt of original notice from this Forum. A perusal of Repayment Schedule Ex. C-4 issued on 26-04-2011 by opposite party No. 1 reveals as under :-

   “Customer Chaman Lal

   Agreement No. HHEBAT00010102

   Amount Financed 13,00,000.00

   Tenure (In months) 271

   Total Instl. 271

   Loan Type Loans

   Agmt. Date 09-03-2007

   Frequency Monthly

   Interest Rate 23.00% Eff.”

   Further perusal of this statement reveals that on 1.5.2007 opening principal was Rs. 13,00,000.00, installment amount Rs. 21,620/- which contains principal Rs. 2120/- and interest Rs. 19,500/-, closing principal Rs. 12,97,880/- and rate of interest 18%. Thereafter with short intervals the opposite party No. 1 increased the rate of interest and EMI of complainants. As on 01-03-2011 the rate of interest increased to 23% by making the EMI of the loan of the complainants to the tune of Rs. 24,500/-.

6. A perusal of Repayment Schedule Ex. C-10 issued by opposite party No. 1 on 24-06-2011 reveals that on 01-03-2011 the rate of interest

    

    

   was 23% and thereafter on 01-06-2011, it has been increased to 23.75%. Thus, these statements show that opposite party No. 1 after almost every two months increased the EMI of loan of the complainants by increasing rate of interest and decreasing deduction of principal amount. As per Ex. C-5 i.e. Account statement of loan account of the complainants from 26-4-200 to 26-04-2011, the opposite party No. 1 has levied overdue charges upon the complainants on different dates without giving any details. The complainants have prayed that they are ready to deposit the balance due amount.

7. Thus, keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence produced on file by the complainant, this complaint is accepted with cost of Rs. 1000/- against opposite party No. 1 and dismissed qua opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to do as under :-

   i) To overhaul the loan account of the complainants by withdrawing overdue charges

   ii) Furnish the complete detailed statement of due amount to the complainants alongwith record on the basis of which they charged increased rate of interest in case the agreement is on floating rate of interest basis alongwith copy of agreement.

   iii) Charge interest only upto the period when the complainants pay the amount as full and final.

   iv) Return the original sale deed of the property of the complainants and blank cheques of complainants after the full and final payment of the loan amount.

   The compliance with regard to Sr. Nos. (i) & (ii) mentioned above and payment of cost be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The compliance with regard to Sr. Nos. (iii) and (iv) could be made when the complainants pay the loan amount as full and final to opposite party No. 1.

    

8. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record room.

Pronounced

07-07-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul) Member