BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.129 of 14

Date of Institution: 11-03-2014

Date of Decision: 15-05-2015  

1. Bharat Bhushan, aged about 59 years;
2. Amardeep Bansal, aged about 52 years, both sons of Sh.Som Parkash, residents of  H.No. 26-A, Hargobind Avenue, Gurudwara Palah Sahib Road, Ajnala Road, Amritsar. 

Complainants

Versus

L.I.C.Housing Finance Ltd., SCO-125, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, through its Manager/ Person Over all Incharge. 

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainants: None for the complainants.

              For the Opposite Party: Sh.S.M.Varmani, Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by complainants  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that they availed housing loan to the tune of Rs.9 lacs from the Opposite Party at the floating rate of interest 8.75% per annum and this rate was applicable for the first three months from the date of  disbursement of the loan and it was to be reviewed   quarterly thereafter and as such the loan facility was availed by the complainants from the Opposite Party against the payment of consideration in the shape of interest and other requisite charges. Complainants allege that as per the schedule of repayment provided by the Opposite Party, appropriation of the equated monthly installments of Rs.8991/- were to be made in accordance with the schedule of the repayment provided by the Opposite Party for the first 12 installments.  However, on subsequent appraisal of the statement of account provided by the Opposite Party in the month of May, 2013 on repeated requests, it was found out that the installment paid by the complainants was not appropriated in accordance with the schedule. The complainants have been regularly making payment of their installments and whenever some installment was missed, the same was deposited with the requisite interest and other charges so imposed by the Opposite Party. In the month of May 2013 when the complainants went to deposit their installments, they were informed by the Opposite Party that the complainants were liable to pay three installments more which they have not paid since the disbursement of the loan. The complainants were shocked to know about this fact because as per their knowledge only two installments were missing which they were  ready and are still ready to pay. The complainants then demanded from the Opposite Party their statement of account to ensure as to the installments pertaining to which month remained  unpaid, but the Opposite Party flatly refused to provide any copy of the statement of account until and unless the complainants made the payments of all the three installments with huge charges towards penal/ additional interest and other expenses.  The complainants then contacted the Corporate Office of the Opposite Party through e-mail on 22.5.2013 in response to which he replied an e-mail alongwith the statement of account of the complainants and a quotation of payment demanding Rs.33,360/- towards the three installments. On detailed examination of the statement of account provided  by the Opposite Party, the complainants found that the installment for the month of July, 2010 was unpaid and it was further observed that the installment for the month of August, 2010 was not credited to the loan account of the complainants. The complainant continuously remain in touch with Opposite Party asking details about the adjustment of the said installment, but to their utter shock the complainants  received an e-mail dated 23.8.2013 declaring that the installment for the month of August, 2010 and September, 2010 were adjusted towards the installments of July, 2010 with interest and other charges. However, this fact was never shown in the statement of account provided to the complainants by the Opposite Party and it was only after the repeated communication from the side of complainants that a story was cooked up by the Opposite Party to show the adjustment of this installment amounting to Rs.9656/- while their books of accounts showed no such adjustment.  It was further observed that since August, 2010 the account of the complainants has been burdened with additional interest as well as recovery charges to the extent of about Rs.800/- per month which are unnecessarily being charged by the Opposite Party. Since when the missed installment was adjusted from the two next installments, the question of charging additional interest and recovery charges continuously thereafter does not arise.  The Opposite Party has not credited the amount of Rs.9656/- to the account of complainants which was paid towards the installment for the month of August, 2010. Further the account of the complainants being a running account the Opposite Party has also wrongly charged Rs.19870/- towards additional interest and Rs.18037/- towards recovery charges which they are not entitled to legally as the same were never disclosed to the complainants at the time of disbursement of loan.   Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.9656/- towards installment for the month of August, 2010 alongwith Rs.19870/- towards additional interest alongwith Rs. 18037/- towards recovery charges and in all Rs. 47563/-.    Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainants applied for housing loan with the Opposite Party which was  disbursed i.e. Rs.6,50.000/- on 22.5.2009,  Rs.2,25,000/- on 22.6.2009 and Rs.25,000/- on 29.10.2009. From the very beginning, the loan account of the complainants was not regular and attracted additional interest, bank charges and recovery charges. Opposite Party further submitted that installment through ECS of July 2010 or Rs. 9656/- bounced and out of the installment of August and September installments of Rs.10524/- was adjusted for July installment (Bifurcation of the adjusted amount is additional interest Rs. 319/-, EMI Principal Rs. 2405.24, EMI interest Rs. 7250.76,  bank charges Rs. 150, and recovery charges Rs. 399/-). Balance amount after adjustment from EMI of August and September goes to excess amount as it was not adjustable. Thereafter installment paid on 10.10.2010 through ECS got bounced and there after the account not regular and as a matter of routine attracted additional interest and other charges. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Moreover, the complainant regarding charges of excess interest and various entries in the ledger of the bank- Not a fit case to decide under the Consumer Protection Act.            While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainants tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Amardeep Bansal, one of the complainants, Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C36 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainants.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Darshan Singh, Area Manager Ex.OP1 alongwith copy of statement of account Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the Opposite Party  and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the Opposite Party.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainants obtained joint housing loan to the tune of Rs.9 lacs from the Opposite Party with the floating rate of interest 8.75% per annum. Said amount  alongwith interest was to be paid  through EMI of Rs.8991/- as per schedule of the repayment. Complainant allege that they have been   regularly making payment of their installments and as per their knowledge only two installments were missing which they were  ready to pay the same. The complainants  demanded from the Opposite Party their statement of account.  Opposite Party demanded  Rs.33,360/- towards the three installments and the Opposite Party also supplied the statement of account to the complainant from which the complainant found that the installment for the month of July, 2010 was unpaid. The complainants paid the installment for the month of August, 2010 as well as for September, 2010, but the Opposite Party adjusted the amount of installments of August, 2010 towards installment of July, 2010 with interest and other charges and they adjusted Rs. Rs.9656/- towards the installment of July, 2010 as per statement of account.  The complainants have been burdened with additional interest as well as recovery charges to the extent of about Rs.800/- per month.  The Opposite Party has not credited the amount of Rs.9656/- to the loan account of complainants which was paid towards the installment for the month of August, 2010. Opposite Party has also wrongly charged Rs.19870/- towards additional interest and Rs.18037/- towards recovery charges.  Complainants      submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the complainants applied for housing loan with the Opposite Party  and the Opposite Party   disbursed  the loan of Rs.6,50.000/- on 22.5.2009, Rs.2,25,000/- on 22.6.2009 and Rs.25,000/- on 29.10.2009. From the very beginning, the loan account of the complainants was not regular and as such, it  attracted additional interest, bank charges and recovery charges. Installment through ECS of July 2010 for Rs. 9656/- bounced and out of the installment of August and September, 2010 installments of Rs.10524/- was adjusted for July installment which included  additional interest Rs. 319/-, EMI Principal Rs. 2405.24, EMI interest Rs. 7250.76,  bank charges Rs. 150, and recovery charges Rs. 399/-. The balance amount after adjustment from EMI of August and September goes to excess amount as it was not adjustable. Again the installment paid on 10.10.2010 through ECS got bounced and thereafter the account of the complainants not regular. As such, it attracted  additional interest and other charges.  All these facts have been disclosed in the statement of account of the complainant Ex.OP2 running into 12 pages.  Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party further submitted that as the matter relates to accounts and interest which is not a consumer dispute. The complainants should have approach civil courts.     Ld.counsel for the opposite party  further submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainants obtained joint housing loan to the tune of Rs.9 lacs from the Opposite Party which was payable  through EMI as per statement of account.  From the very beginning, the account of the complainants remained irregular and as such, it  attracted additional interest, bank charges and recovery charges.  It is clear from the  statement of account of the complainants Ex.OP2 that the installment paid by the complainants through ECS of July 2010 for Rs. 9656/- bounced and out of the installment of August and September, 2010 installments of Rs.10524/- was adjusted for July installment (bifurcation of the adjusted amount is  additional interest Rs. 319/-, EMI Principal Rs. 2405.24, EMI interest Rs. 7250.76,  bank charges Rs. 150, and recovery charges Rs. 399/-) and the balance amount after adjustment from EMI of August and September goes to excess amount. Thereafter, the installment paid on 10.10.2010 through ECS also got bounced and even after that the account of the complainants was not regular. As such, it attracted  additional interest, other charges, etc.,  All these facts have been disclosed in the statement of account of the complainants Ex.OP2. Complainants have alleged that  Opposite Party has also wrongly charged Rs.19870/- towards additional interest and Rs.18037/- towards recovery charges. But he could not produce any detail of the so called wrongly charged additional/ penal interest, bank charges and other recovery charges. The matter in dispute relates to accounts. It has been held by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana in case Punjab National Bank Vs. Amrit Lal Bhamba in 1997(ISJ (Banking) 207 as well as by Hon’ble National Commision, New Delhi in case 1(1995), CPJ (NC), titled as M/s.Omika Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India that having regard to the nature of the contention raised, there can not be a satisfactory adjudication of the issues involved in the time bound proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. This Original Petition is dismissed on this short ground  without prejudice to the right of the complainants to seek redress for the allegations of excess interest charged by the Opposite Party-Bank in a suit, if he is so advised.  It was further held that where there is complaint regarding the charging of the excess interest and various entries in ledger of the bank, it is not fit case to be decided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Civil court is the proper Forum.
9. In view of the above discussion, we hold that as present case relates to allegations of excess charging of interest/ additional interest, penal interest and other charges, etc., so the matter relates to accounts and as such, it is not a fit case to be decided by this Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Moreover, the complainants could not point out any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Resultantly, the present complaint is dismissed, without prejudice  to the right of the complainants to seek redress for the allegations of excess charging of interest/ additional interest, penal interest and other charges, etc. by the Opposite Party-Bank in suit, if they so advised. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.    Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 15-05-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                 (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)    (Anoop Sharma)

              Member                         Member