RESERVED

    STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                   UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                    COMPLAINT NO. 442 OF 2017

M/s Best Choice Enterprises

C-5 Sector 14 Noida,U.P.

Through Gurpreet Singh Rekhi, Partner

                                                                                          ...Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1. Through M/s Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.

K-24/25 2^nd Floor Sector-18, Noida 201301

its Managing Director

2. Ms Nandini Mehrotra

Customer Relationship Officer, K-24/25

2^nd Floor Pearl Plaza, Sector 18, Noida

3. Robin Marwaha

Grievance Redressal Officer

K-24/25 2^nd Floor Sector-18, Noida 201301

                                                                                      ...Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE MR. MAHESH CHAND, MEMBER

For the Complainant            :    Sri S K Srivastava, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party         :                                          

Dated : 14-06-2018

                                                  ORDER

        PER MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

This is a complaint filed by complainant M/s Best Choice Enterprises against opposite parties M/s Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, Ms. Nandini Mehrotra, Customer Relationship Officer and Robin Marwaha, Grievance Redressal Officer under Section-17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 with prayer to grant following reliefs:-

1. That the opposite party refund a sum of Rs.28,73,630.81 alongwith interest @ 18% from the date of repayment till the date of actual repayment.
2. And also pay sum of compensation/damages of Rs.25,00,000/- (twenty five lakhs only)

:2:

3. That the Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to award costs of this litigation to the complainant at present quantified at Rs.1,25,000/-
4. And or award any other award or decree and the Commission feel just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.”

In complaint it has been stated by the complainant that the complainant is a partnership firm belonging to the same family and it is running business for earning livelihood. It has been further stated that the firm took loan of Rs.7,53,00,000/- on 31-07-2014 from opposite party No.01 for business needs and mortgaged property for the same. In the loan agreement it has been clearly mentioned that foreclosure charges shall be 1% if the loan is paid by their own funds and 2% if transferred to another bank.

In complaint it has been stated by the complainant that the complainant was absolutely regular in payment of the loan. The opposite party No.01 sanctioned second loan of Rs.6,50,00,000/- in January, 2015 to complainant firm on the same terms and conditions of foreclosure as in previous loan. The loan was disbursed in two parts. Firstly rupees five crore starting from March, 2015 and secondly rupees one crore fifty lacs starting from June, 2015.

In complaint it has been stated by the complainant that the complainant applied for foreclosure of the second loan on 24-01-2016 and was given total repayment amount of Rs.6,38,76,093.19  vide 2 letters issued by the opposite party No.02. Thereafter again on 14-12-2016 the complainant arranged funds and went to opposite party No.01 to repay the loan but he was shocked to know that the complainant would have to pay foreclosure charges not at the rate of agreed 1% but at the rate of 5% and when complainant contacted opposite party No.2 she informed that foreclosure letter dated 14-10-2016 has been issued from her official ID and the matter will be resolved by the next working day but when complainant again contacted opposite party No.02 on 15-12-2016 she said that she had no control over anything. The customer service team is handling the matter. Thereafter complainant received an email letter from opposite party No.03 Robin Marwaha of Grievance Redressal of

:3:

opposite party No.01 wherein it was stated that 1% foreclosure charge letter dated 24-10-2016 is erroneous. The complainant further received a telephonic call also in this respect.

In complaint it has been stated that the complainant contacted opposite parties and informed them that the act of demanding foreclosure charge at the rate of 5% is completely unfair and unjust and it is a deceptive trade practice. The complainant shall make complaint to RBI for appropriate legal action. Thereupon the opposite party No.01 responded by threatening complainant to withhold the original property documents to harass the complainant.

In complaint it has been stated by the complainant that the opposite party has charged 5% foreclosure charges instead of 1% agreed rate and the complainant was forced to pay Rs.6,61,88,254/- against loan of Rs.6,50,00,000/- even after paying EMI of Rs.7,85,000/- for nearly two years.  Even after payment of Rs.1,41,17,388/- the complainant had to pay Rs.6,61,88,254/- as foreclosure charges on a loan of Rs.6,50,00,000/-.Technically this translates into an interest rate of 15.69% instead of sanctioned rate 12.1%.

In complaint it has been stated by complainant that the opposite parties have committed unfair and deceptive trade practice as well as deficiency in service. As such opposite parties are liable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 to pay Rs.28,73,630.81 to  complainant.

The averments made in complaint clearly show that the complaint has been filed for redressal of grievance arising out of transactions of loan taken by complainant from opposite parties for commercial purpose. As such the complainant is not a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the complaint filed by it is not maintainable under the Act.

The view expressed above finds support from the following judgments of Hon’ble National Commission.

01.Sathya Sai Agencies V/s Punjab National Bank and others reported in 2016(1) CPR 612(NC).

02.Consumer Case No. 1047 of 2016 Sidhmukh Flexible Packaging

:4:

Pvt. Ltd. V/s State Bank of India and 2 others.

Further more the cause of action for complaint has arisen out of closure of second loan obtained by complainant from opposite party No.01 and the sanctioned limit of said loan is Rs.6,50,00,000/- which is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of this State Commission.

We have perused following judgment referred by learned Counsel for the complainant.

01.Harsolia Motors V/s National Insurance Company Limited reported in I(2005) CPJ 27(NC).

In view of discussion made above this judgment is not helpful to complainant.

In view of above complaint is dismissed with liberty to complainant to approach proper court or forum.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties within 15 days positively as per rules.

                                                               ( JUSTICE A H KHAN )

                                                                               PRESIDENT

                                                                   ( MAHESH CHAND )

                                                                                    MEMBER

          pnt