Haryana

Ambala

CC/471/2022

JARNAIL SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC HOSUING FINANCE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MUKESH KUMAR

01 Oct 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	471 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	21.12.2022
Date of decision	:	01.10.2024

Jarnail Singh son of Sh. Bachan Singh Age 55 Years r/o H.No.95, village Gumti, Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra, Haryana

                                                                                                          ……. Complainant

Versus

LIC Housing Finance Ltd, through its Area Manager, 29-A, Staff Road, Ambala Cantt-13301, Haryana.

                                                                                            ….….  Opposite party

Before:       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                    Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

        Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Vijay Kumar, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                    Mrs. Anjana Goel, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of directions to it to pay Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.5,00,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.4,00,000/-) as compensation for the cheating, mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant alongwith interest @18% p.a, from the date of filing of this complaint, till its realization.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a law abiding citizen and he is employee in Haryana Roadways. To purchase a house, he took Loan from the OP in the year 2016 in the name of his wife, Suresh vide loan account No.311900001649, vide application No.3119002438 dated        31.03.2016, and he stood guarantor and was ready to pay installments of Rs.16,803/- P.M. in 240 equally monthly installment @ 20% per annum interest. In the month of September 2018, complainant requested the OP many times not to represent the cheque because his salary was late for some departmental reason. The OP assured that the said cheque will not be presented for clearance. But after some time with malafide intention, the OP presented the cheque No.764650 dated 29.09.2018 of Rs.35,200/- on 05.10.2018 and got the memo with remarks “Funds Insufficient” from the Bank. After this incident, complainant deposited the loan money by cash to LIC, HFL Branch, but the OP with malafide intention moved a false and frivolous complaint before JMIC, Ambala on 14.12.2018, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The complainant visited the OP several times and asked about the aforesaid court case. The OP assured him that it will withdraw the said case soon. However, the OP after harassing him for many years, had withdrawn the case. The said act of the OP amounts to deficiency in providing service.  Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability, not come with clean hands and concealed the true facts etc. On merits, it is stated that on 30.03.2016, housing loan of Rs.18,00,000/- was sanctioned to Smt. Suresh which was repayable in 240 equal monthly installment of Rs.14475/- with interest @9.50% p.a. and the complainant was the co-applicant. Both of them accepted the terms and conditions of sanction letter and the entire loan was disbursed to them.  At the time of securing the loan, the complainant and his wife executed various loan documents, promising the payment of the above loan amount along with interest. But, when they did not pay the loan amount, then the OP requested and sent several reminders to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant issued a cheque No. 764650 dated 29.09.2018 of Rs.35200/-, as part payment, in favour of LICHFL. The OP presented the said cheque for encashment at the State Bank of India, but it was dishonored vide Memo dated 05.10.2018 with the remarks “FUNDS INSUFFICIENT”. Since, the said cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds, as such, a complaint was filed against the complainant U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with special costs.
4.           It may be stated here that the complainant failed to lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities, therefore, evidence of the complainant has been closed by the order of this Commission on 26.02.2024.  On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered affidavit of Shri Deepak Kumar, Area Manager, LIC Housing Finance Limited, Ambala as Annexure OPA alongwith document as Annexure OP1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by presenting the cheque in question and initiating the proceedings under NI Act, 1881, despite the fact that request was made by the complainant not to present the same, as he was facing some financial constraint qua non obtaining of salary because of some departmental reason, the OP is deficient in providing service.
7.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP submitted that the OP has exercised its option available to it, as per terms and conditions agreed to between the parties. She further submitted that there was no agreement between the parties, not to present the cheque, when the EMI fell due, qua the loan in question. She further submitted that since the cheque in question bounced, when presented, as such, the OP was right in initiating the proceedings against the complainant under the NI Act, 1881.   
8.           The complainant has pleaded that the cheque numbered 764650, dated 29.09.2018, for the amount of Rs. 35,200/-, was issued in favour of the OP by him, as part of the repayment for a housing loan taken by his wife, Suresh. The cheque was subsequently dishonored when presented to the concerned bank, prompting the OP to initiate legal proceedings against the complainant under the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The complainant contends that he faced difficulties related to his salary due to departmental issues and claims to have requested the OP to refrain from presenting the said cheque. However, the complainant has failed to produce any evidence to substantiate this alleged request. Moreover, there is a conspicuous absence of any written settlement agreement or formal understanding between the parties indicating that the OP had an obligation to withhold the cheque based on such a request from the complainant. Once, the OP acted in accordance with standard practices by presenting the cheque for the repayment of the loan’s equated monthly installment (EMI), and the cheque subsequently bounced, then it cannot be said to be negligent or deficient in providing service.  
9.           In light of the specific facts and circumstances of this case, it is concluded that the complainant has not met the burden of proving his case. As a result, there is no basis for granting any relief to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules.  File be annexed and consigned to the record room.

  Announced:- 01.10.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President