BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/ 78 of 3.2.2010 

                                                Decided on:          26.9.2011

Sher Singh son of Sarwan Singh, 30, Dashmesh Colony, Nabha.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

L.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd., SCO 2445-46,Sector 22-C,Chandigarh through its Manager.

                                                                             ----------Opposite party.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.D.D.Sharma, Advocate

For opposite party:                 None

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          The complainant applied for the house building advance of Rs.5lacs to the ops vide application No.5890 having the term of repayment of 10 years but the agent of the ops recorded the term of the loan as 15 years inadvertently. The agent had however, told the complainant that he had filled up the term of the loan as 10 years.

2.       The ops sanctioned the loan of Rs.5lacs on 24.7.2011 under a 15 years term plan having fixed the installment of Rs.7600/- per month, which actually pertains to the term of 10 years.

3.       The complainant deposited 29 installments at the rate of Rs.7600/- per month upto 16.2.2004.The employees of the op told the complainant that he had been depositing the installments of 10 years plan and that the installment of 15 years plan comes to Rs.6450/-.Accordingly, thereafter the complainant started depositing the installment of  Rs.6450/- per month. The complainant had deposited the excess amount.

4.       It is further averred that the op has not provided the efficient service to the complainant in as much as it had fixed the installment at the initial stage wrongly and failed to adjust the amount deposited by the complainant in excess.

5.       It is also averred that the employees of the op threatened the complainant that since he had not deposited the amount in full, they will attach the house of the complainant. Accordingly the complainant approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) for a direction to the op to correct the record and adjust the installment deposited by the complainant and to refund the excess amount already deposited because of the fault on the part of the op and to issue the NOC to the complainant.

6.       On notice, op appeared and filed the written version. It is the plea taken up by the op that the complainant is not a consumer. He has defaulted in making the payment of the EMIs in respect of his liability as would appear from Annexure C1. He is a defaulter since May 2010 as would appear from Annexure C2.

7.       It is admitted by the op that the complainant had applied for the loan of Rs.5lacs vide application no.92840 having asked for a term loan of 15 years as would appear from Annexure C3. The loan was sanctioned for a term of 15 years. The complainant was issued the schedule of EMIs i.e. of Rs.6450/- per month vide letter dated 4.7.2001 shown as annexure Ex.CV. It is denied if the installment was fixed at Rs.7600/- per month.

8.       It is further averred that in case the complainant wanted the loan for a term of 10 years or if he found anything lacking or wanted any change in the term of the loan, he could approach the op but he failed to do so. The complaint has been filed after a gap of nine years and therefore, the same is barred under Section 24A of the Act.

9.       It is further averred that the complainant has not been depositing the EMIs as fixed by the ops. In case the complainant deposited more amount the same was credited to his account. The complainant has not explained as to how much amount he deposited in excess and which has not been adjusted in his account. The complainant is a defaulter since May 2010 as would appear from default statement, Annexure C2.There is no deficiency or negligence in service on the part of the op and ultimately it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

10.     In support of his complaint the complainant produced in evidence Ex.C1/A his sworn affidavit, Exs.C2/A the sworn affidavit of Malkit Singh alongwith documents,Exs.C1 to C102 and his lerned counsel closed the evidence.

11.     On the other hand, on behalf of the op, its learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of Mrs.Poonam Gupta Deputy Manager of the op alongwith documents Exs.R2 to R6 and closed its evidence.

12.     The op filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel of the complainant none having appeared on behalf of the op and gone through the evidence on record.

13.     Ex.R4, is the copy of the application for housing loan submitted by the complainant on 15.6.2011 showing the amount of the loan to be raised by the complainant as Rs.5lacs and the term of the loan as 15 years. Ex.R5 is the copy of the loan offer letter dated 2.7.2001 issued by the op to the complainant in which also the term of the loan has been described as 15 years. Ex.R6 is the copy of the letter dated4.7.2011 written by the op to the complainant having informed him regarding the disbursal of the first installment of the loan for Rs.4,50,000/- in which re payment schedule for 12 installments starting from 1.8.2001 to 1.7.2002 has been given, the first installment of the interest being of Rs.4487.70 and the subsequent installment of Rs.6450/- i.e. Rs.4875/- as interest and Rs.1575/- as principal.

14.     The complainant instead of  depositing the installment of Rs.6450/- had deposited Rs.7900/- on 20.9.2001, Rs.7300/- on 20.10.2001, Rs.7600/- on 19.11.2001 and thereafter he had been depositing Rs.7600/- as is clear from Ex.R2.

15.     In case the complainant deposited an installment in excess of Rs.6450/-, the same has been adjusted in the loan account of the complainant.

16.     It is the case of the op that the complainant is defaulter since May 2010 and the same can be seem from Ex.R2, the statement of account which would go to show that the complainant had not deposited any amount on 30.5.2010, 21.6.2010 and 16.7.2010. A sum of Rs.1,49,780.17 was shown to be due and outstanding in the account of the complainant as on 28.7.2010 The complainant was informed about the same vide Ex.R3 written by the op to the complainant on 6.8.2010 having disclosed that he was due to pay an amount of Rs.25237.21 for the period 5.5.2010 to 5.8.2010 and on payment of the same the outstanding amount in the loan will be Rs.1,28,591.51.

17.     The learned counsel for the complainant failed to point out any discrepancy  in the statement of account, Ex.R2.

18.     Sh.D.D.Sharma, the learned counsel for the complainant simply stated at bar that the officials of the op are harassing the complainant by approaching him at his house saying that they will attach his house and therefore, it is a deficiency on the part of the op.

19.     No where the complainant has made any  deposition in his sworn affidavit Ex.C1/A with regard to any harassment caused to him by the officials of the op in the matter of attaching his house and rather it is merely averred in para no.8 of the same that the complainant informed the op that he has deposited the installment regularly but the op failed to adjust the installment and rather op is writing letters and issuing notices time and again that the complainant is not depositing the installments regularly and threatened that they will start legal proceedings and in that way the op has put the complainant under pressure.

20.     We find ourselves unable to find any deficiency of service on the part of the op because the complainant has not been able to show that any installment to have been deposited by him has not been accounted for in the account. The complainant has not been able to show that the amount deposited in excess of the installment fixed by the op has not been adjusted in his account. Therefore, we can not issue any direction to the op to adjust any installment to have been deposited by the complainant in his loan account and the same having not been accounted for.In other words,we do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:26.9.2011

                             Neelam Gupta      Amarjit Singh Dhindsa    D.R.Arora

                             Member                Member                            President