| ORDER |
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
C.C. No. 579 of 05-12-2012 Decided on 17-10-2013
Jagdish Chander aged about 66 years S/o Sh. Bal Kishan Dass. Suman Rani aged about 58 years W/o Jagdish Chander through her power of attorney holder Sh. Jagdish Chander Amit Arora aged about 29 years S/o Jagdish Chander Sumit Arora aged about 26 years S/o Jagdish Chander - All residents of 292, Model Town, Phase-I, Bathinda.
…...Complainants Versus India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd., Deep Complex, Near Hanuman Chowk, Building of Apollo Hospital, Guru Kanshi Marg, Goniana Road, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager/Loan Manager/Location Manager Reserve Bank of India, Central Office Building, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400001, through its Governor/Authorized Signatory (Deleted vide order dated 4-1-2013)
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member For the Complainant : Sh. Naresh Garg, counsel for the complainant. For the opposite parties : Sh. J D Nayyar, counsel for opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 2 already deleted.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
The instant 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 an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the opposite party No. 1 to increase their business approached the complainants and offered them a housing loan in the month of October, 2009 with the assurance that they will charge minimum interest i.e. @ 14.75% per annum which is fixed. On the assurance, the complainants applied with opposite party No. 1 for loan and the loan was sanctioned vide No. HLAPBAT00054705 for the amount of Rs. 20,25,000/- and No. HLAPBAT00054667 for Rs. 5,00,000/- in November, 2009 and fixed EMI's of Rs. 32,362/- and Rs. 7,991/- respectively interest @ 14.75% p.a. with monthly rests. The opposite party No. 1 at the time of sanction of the loans also created equitable mortgage on the properties of the complainant Suman Rani by way of depositing the original two sale deeds. The complainants alleged that at the time of releasing the said loans, the opposite party No. 1 told the complainants that the EMI's of the loans can be deposited on any date of the month and EMI will not be changed without the prior consent of the complainant, but the opposite party No. 1 increased the rate of interest after 9 months from 14.75% to 19%. The complainants lodged the protest regarding increase of interest and deposited some amount in lump-sum in both the accounts i.e. Rs. 5,04,985/- and Rs. 1,25,000/- respectively. Thereafter the complainants arranged the whole loan balance amount in both the loan cases and demanded statements of balance amount from the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 issued letters to the complainants to deposit amount of Rs. 14,18,883.79 in account No. HLAPBAT00054705 and Rs. 3,49,969.62 in account No. HLAPBAT00054667. The complainants alleged that the opposite party No. 1 have illegally charged rate of interest @19% as against 14.75%. The complainants thereafter paid the EMI's in time and also paid the EMI's of October, 2012 and November, 2012. The complainants after arranging the balance money as per calculation sheet dated 30-10-2012 approached the opposite party No. 1 and showed protest regarding prepayment charges @5.62% . The complainants also got issued legal notice dated 16-11-2012 to the opposite parties in this context. Thereafter having no alternative, the complainants again went to the office of opposite party No. 1 on 19-11-2012 and deposited the balance amounts in the form of drafts, as per sheet dated 30-10-2012. The complainants also showed protest by giving a remarks on the receipts dated 19-11-2012 of the opposite party No. 1, but they threaten the complainants that if they deposit the amount under protest then they will not adjust their loan accounts and having no alternative, the complainants deposited the drafts of the balance amounts as per sheet dated 30-10-2012 whereas the opposite party No. 1 issued the new calculation on 19-11-2012 vide which they demanded Rs. 13,98,054/- in loan account No. HLAPBAT00054705 instead of Rs. 14,18,883.79 and Rs. 3,45,323,88 in loan account No. HLAPBAT00054667 instead of Rs. 3,49,969.62. The complainants immediately on the next day lodged the protest with the opposite parties under intimation to their head offices vide registered letter dated 20-11-2012 and demanded the excess amount and pre-payment charges which were charged by opposite party No. 1 illegally from the complainants. The complainants alleged that the opposite party No. 1 on 19-11-2012 charged the following amounts from the complainants on account of pre payment charges :- A. Loan Account No. HLAPBAT0054705 That is @5.62% at O/S Principal Rs. 72,194.40 and PP Foreclosre charges @ 5.62% on Rs. 5,04,985/- (amount already deposited in the loan account as lump-sum) Rs. 28,380.16 i.e. total amount of Rs. 1,00,574.56 under the head of pre-payment charges and also took extra payment from complainant as deposited amount of Rs. 14,18,884/- vide draft No. 335644 of AXIS Bank, Bathinda, against the outstanding including foreclosure charges Rs. 13,98,054.08 (extra excess payment Rs. 20,829.92) i.e. total payment of Rs. 1,00,574.56+Rs. 20,829.92 = Rs. 1,21,404.48. B. Loan Account No. HLAPBAT00054667 That is foreclosure charges of Rs. 5.62% at O/S Principal Rs. 17,805.02 and pre-payment foreclosure charges @ 5.62% on 1,25,000/- - Rs. 7025/- i.e. total amount of Rs. 24,830/- and also took extra payment from complainant as deposited amount of Rs. 3,49,970/- against the outstanding including foreclosure charges of Rs. 3,45,323.88 (extra excess payment 4646.12) i.e. total payment of Rs. 24,830.02 + Rs. 4646.12 = Rs. 29,476.14. The complainants further alleged that the official of opposite party No. 1 illegally and with malafide intention put stamp of SOLD on the registered sale deed No. 10623, 10624 dated 6-10-08 and 6257 dated 2-12-09. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite party No. 1, now no other bank is ready to give loan to the complainants against these sale deeds and no one is ready to purchase the said property as it is suspected that the said property has already been sold. The complainants alleged that the opposite party No. 1 has also charged interest @19% instead of 14.75%. The complainants further alleged that they demanded the original above said sale deeds in the name of Suman Rani and original security blank cheques and EMI's cheques from the opposite party No. 1 on 19-11-2012 and vide letter dated 20-11-2012, but all in vain as the opposite party No. 1 neither adjusted the account @ 14.75% p.a. nor paid the balance excess payment nor returned the PP foreclosure charges, aforesaid cheques and original sale deeds. Hence, the complainants have filed the present complaint seeking directions to opposite party No. 1 to overhaul the aforesaid loan accounts by charging the rate of interest @ 14.75% and refund the excess amount; refund Rs. 1,21,404.48 in loan account No. HLAPBAT00054705; refund Rs. 29,476.14 in loan account No. HLAPBAT00054667; return all pre EMI's cheques and blank security cheques of Axis Bank; return original sale deeds in the name of Suman Rani and other papers and pay compensation and cost. The complainants have also prayed for directions to opposite party No. 1 to give stamp value with new collector rate of the said property and correct all the three original sale deeds after removing the stamp 'sold'. The opposite party filed its written statement and admitted that the complainants had obtained the loan facilities of Rs. 20,25,000/- under loan account No. HLAPBAT00054705 and Rs. 5,00,000/- under loan account No. HLAPBAT00054667 towards loan against property at floating rate of interest. The opposite party has pleaded that the complainants after completing the necessary formalities and agreeing to comply with all the terms and conditions of the loan agreements, executed the necessary documents in this regard. Both loans were sanctioned and disbursed to the complainant as per the terms and conditions and rules and regulations. The said loans were disbursed to the complainants @14.75% (PLR 17.75% - Variance 3%) and both were payable in 120 installments of Rs. 32,362/- against loan account No. HLAPBAT00054705 and Rs. 7991/- against loan account No. HLAPBAT00054667 respectively. The complainants had opted floating rate of interest at the time of taking loans and it was made clear to the complainants that in case of any change in the Primary Lending Rate (PLR), the rate of interest may increase or decrease from time to time and also installment amount or tenure of the loans may be changed accordingly. The opposite party has pleaded that at the time of disbursing the loans to the complainants, the PLR was 17.75% p.a. The PLR got increased 17.75% p.a. to 18.25% p.a. and the rate of interest of complainants was increased from 14.75% to 15.25%. Due to increase of said PLR, the tenure and EMI of loan accounts were changed w.e.f. 1-9-2010 and a letter dated 27-8-2010 was issued by the opposite party to the complainants accordingly. The PLR got increased 18.25% p.a. to 18.75% p.a. w.e.f. 1-10-2010, 18.75% to 19.50% p.a. w.e.f. 1-12-2010, 19.50% to 20.25% w.e.f. 1-2-11, 21.50% to 22.00% p.a. w.e.f. 1-8-2011, 21.00% to 21.50% p.a. w.e.f. 1-7-2011, 21.50% to 22.00% p.a. w.e.f. 1-8-2011. The opposite party has further pleaded that due to increase of PLR from time to time, the tenures and EMIs of both loans were changed accordingly. The letters dated 1-10-2010, 1-12-2010, 1-2-2011, 1-5-2011, 1-7-2011, 1-8-2011 were issued by the opposite party to the complainants. The opposite party informed the complainants from time to time regarding the increase of tenure and rate of interest as per rules and regulations and as per loan agreements executed between the complainants and opposite party No. 1. The opposite party has further pleaded that whenever the complainants approached it, it was fully explained to them regarding the change in the rate of interest due to change in PLR. It was also explained to them about the prepayment norms as per loan agreements. The full detail of the amount was mentioned in the foreclosure letter regarding the amount receivable from the complainants and being satisfied with the amount mentioned in the said letter, the complainants paid the same. No excess amount was ever demanded from the complainants by the opposite party and the demand was legal as per terms of the loan agreement. The amount was received from the complainants after deducting the amount of EMI received for the month of November, 2012 on new calculation and not as per calculation dated 30-10-2012. The original title deeds and other documents were already supplied to the complainants/property owner by the opposite party after receiving the full and final amount of the loan. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. These are undisputed facts between the parties that the complainants had obtained the loan facilities of Rs. 20,25,000/- under loan account No. HLAPBAT00054705 and Rs. 5,00,000/- under loan account No. HLAPBAT00054667 towards loan against property at floating rate of interest from the opposite party. The complainants got their both the loan accounts foreclosed on 19-11-2012 and paid an amount of Rs. 14,18,884/- in account No. HLAPBAT00054705 and Rs. 3,49,970/- in account No. HLAPBAT00054667. The allegations of the complainants were that :- a) On the registered sale deed No. 10623, 10624 dated 6-10-2008 and 6257 dated 2-12-09 a stamp of 'sold' has been marked by the officials of the opposite party and in this way, stamp papers of Rs. 99,000/- have been destroyed. b) The opposite party started increasing rate of interest after nine months and increased the rate @ 14.75% to 19% without prior consent of the complainants. c) The opposite party has charged extra amount of prepayment foreclosure charges The opposite party has specifically denied in its written statement in para No. 19(A) that the stamps of 'sold' have been embossed by their officials on the documents in question. The pleading of the opposite party was that the original deeds handed over to them already had stamps of 'sold' and the same have been returned in as it is conditions to the complainants. During the proceedings of the case, the complainants moved an application for appointment of local commissioner for confirming the status of registered sale deed No. 10623, 10624 dated 6-10-2009 and sale deed No. 6257 dated 2-12-2009 in the office of Sub Registrar Tehsil Complex, Bathinda. In the interest of justice, the application of the complainants was allowed and Sh. Mohinder Pal Garg, Advocate, was appointed as Local Commissioner, who submitted his report before this Forum on 20-05-2013. The relevant portion of this report reads as under :- “...That as per record of the Registrar/Tehsildar, there is no such stamp of 'sold' has been embossed on any of the sale deeds as mentioned above. That I have applied for certified copies of all the sale deeds which have been received by me and are attached herewith this report for the perusal of this Hon'ble Court” This Forum perused the certified copies of sale deeds in question attached with the report by local commissioner and found that these sale deeds do not bear 'sold' stamps meaning thereby that these property documents show that the said property is in the name of its owner as per record of Tehsil. Hence, the contention of the complainants that due to 'sold' stamp, no one is ready to purchase the property in question and the stamp papers of Rs. 99,000/- have been destroyed is devoid of merit. b) The complainants have alleged that at the time of reimbursement of claim, the opposite party has sanctioned the loans on fixed rate of interest but after nine months they started increasing rate of interest that too without the prior consent of the complainant. The pleading of the opposite party in this regard is that the loans in question have been sanctioned on floating rate of interest and to prove this version, the opposite party referred loan agreement Ex. OP-1/2. A perusal of this document reveals that no doubt as per Schedule 'B' , the complainants have agreed for floating interest rate but the opposite party has failed to produce any document on file to show that on what basis/criteria i.e. any guidelines/instructions of Reserve Bank of India, they increased the rate of interest whereas admittedly they kept on increasing the rate of interest after every two months. Hence, this Forum is of the view that if the complainants have agreed to get the loan on floating rate of interest, that does not mean that the opposite party got the opportunity to increase the rate of interest as per their own wish. The opposite party was duty bound to duly inform the complainants supporting with the basis/instructions on which they increased the rate of interest, which they failed to do so. Thus, in such circumstances, this Forum is of the considered opinion that since the opposite party has failed to produce any evidence on the basis of which the rate of interest on the loans of the complainants have been increased, it seems that the opposite party increased the rate of interest on the higher side i.e. upto @19% on loan amounts of the complainants at their own without any specific instructions. However, as per present market position, some amount of interest has been increased by the banks and financial institutions. Hence, the complainants are entitled to refund of some amount of interest. c) So far as charging the extra amount as prepayment foreclosure charges by the opposite party is concerned, an amount of Rs. 20829/- and Rs. 4646/- vide cheques No. 272649 dated 12-3-2013 and 272648 dated 12-3-2013 respectively, have been paid to the complainants in this regard by the opposite party and the learned counsel for the complainants after receiving the aforesaid cheques before this Forum suffered statement on 19-3-2013 which was got recorded separately. A perusal of complaint reveals that in the prayer clause the complainants have prayed for issuing directions to the opposite party to return all the original pre EMI's cheques and blank security cheques of Axis Bank, Bathinda and original registered sale deeds in the name of Suman Rani and other papers etc., On 13-3-2013, the opposite party returned all the demanded documents to the complainants and the parties suffered the following statements :- “Statement of Sh. Pawan Kumar Anand, Br. Credit Manager, India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd., on oath Stated that I handed over cheques No. 170437 to 170440, 170381 to 170383, 170384 to 170387, 170377 to 170380 and 170388, original sale deed dated 12-12-2009, certified copy of assignment, original sale deed No. 10623, 11448, 11447 & 3276, certified copy of sale deed No. 452 dated 22-3-1979, original sale deed No. 112, certified copy of sale deed No. 5139 dated 19-1-1993, original agreement to sell dated 11-11-2009, original NEC to Jagdish Chander, complainant.” “Statement of Sh. Jagdish Chander, complainant with his counsel Sh. Naresh Garg, on oath. Stated that I have received the above said documents under protest as on sale deed No. 10623 & 10624 and sale deed No. 6257 with stamps of 'sold'.” Thus as per statement of the complainant, no document of the complainants remain pending with the opposite party and the matter regarding 'sold' stamp embossed on sale deed nos. 10623, 10624 and 6257, has already been discussed and decided above. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on file by the parties, this Forum is of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in raising the rate of interest without furnishing any evidence and prior information to the complainant; not returning the aforesaid documents of the complainants which were handed over to them at the time of reimbursement of loans in question and charging excess amount on account of prepayment -foreclosure of loan accounts. The opposite party has not taken any action despite issuance of legal notice by the complainant but refunded the excess charged amount and returned the original documents to the complainant when the complainant knocked the door of this Forum. Thus, the complainants are also entitled to compensation for mental harassment besides cost of this litigation. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted against the opposite party with Rs.10,000/- as cost and Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) as compensation on all accounts which includes the extra rate of interest charged by the opposite party. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
In case of non-compliance within the stipulated period, the aforesaid amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- will yield interest @ 9% till realization. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record. Pronounced in open Forum 17-10-2013 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President (Amarjeet Paul) Member (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
| |
