Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/406/2016

Sh. Ajay Partap Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Amarbir Dhaliwal

15 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/406/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	03/08/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	15/09/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Ajay Partap Singh son of Sh. Varinder Singh, R/o H.No.1678, PUSHPAC Society, Sector 49-B, Chandigarh.

 

……… Complainant.

Versus

 

1)   India Bulls Housing Finance Limited, SCO 337-338, Ground Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Representative/Agent/Manager etc.

 

2)   India Bulls Housing Finance Limited, M-62-63, 1^st Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi, through its Representative/ Agent/ Manager etc.

……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SMT.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMEBR

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Amarbir Dhaliwal, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          Sh. Ajay Partap Singh, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the India Bulls Housing Finance Limited & Another (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he took a Housing Loan of Rs.1,08,15,910/- @ 12% from the Opposite Parties on 14.05.2014. After due passage of time, the Complainant approached the Canara Bank for borrowing a Housing Loan, as their rate of interest was much lower than the Opposite Parties. Accordingly, the Canara Bank discharged the loan for and on behalf of the Complainant to the Opposite Parties. It has been alleged that the Opposite Parties had charged Rs.2,38,821/- from the Complainant towards foreclosure charges vide letter dated 24.09.2015. The Complainant made repeated requests to the Opposite Parties to refund the said amount, but to no success. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainant has preferred the present Complaint.     

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties in their reply, while admitting the factual aspects of the case, have pleaded that they have charged the foreclosure charges as per terms & conditions of the loan agreement and governing guidelines issued by the National Housing Bank. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The Complainant filed Replication wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the reply by the Opposite Parties have been controverted.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have also perused the record.

 

7.      The grievance of the Complainant is that he has taken a loan from the Opposite Parties as an individual borrower and while foreclosing of the said loan account, the Opposite Parties had charged foreclosure charges from him, wherein as per Rules, they should not have charged the same.

 

8.      On Perusal of the Loan Sanction Letter dated 14.05.2014 (Annexure C-1), we find that the same has been signed by the Complainant as a Director of APS Retails Pvt. Limited. The name of the co-applicant/ guarantor also finds mention as APS Retails Pvt. Limited, Meetika. Importantly, the sanction letter has also been signed by the said Meetika who happens to be a co-applicant/ guarantor in the capacity as Director of APS Retails Pvt. Limited. All the pages of said Loan Sanction Letter has been signed by the Complainant as well as the co-applicant/ guarantor in the capacity of Director of APS Retails Pvt. Limited. In this backdrop, we are of the concerted view that the loan in question was sanctioned to the Complainant in his capacity as a Director of APS Retails Pvt. Limited. This is fact is fortified from the Loan Agreement itself, wherein on Pg. 12 (Schedule) the name of the Borrowers are mentioned as Ajay Partap Singh (Complainant), Meetika and APS Retails Pvt. Limited. 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; whereas, the loans in which company, firm etc. is a borrower or co-borrower, is excluded from its purview. Hence, it is legitimately proved that the loan in the present case was not taken in the capacity as individual borrower rather, it was taken in the capacity as a Director of APS Retails Pvt. Ltd., which is a company/firm therefore, the Opposite Parties, to our mind, were justified in charging the foreclosure charges from the Complainant under Cl. 2.9(a) of the Loan Agreement (Annexure OP-2). Thus, we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.

 

9.      Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

10.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

15^th Sept., 2017                                             Sd/-            

 (SURJEET KAUR)

       PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                          Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”