STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2009 1 Prithvi Singh S/o Sholu Ram Resident of House No.1169, Second Floor, Sector-15, Chandigarh. 2 Satya Devi, Wife of Sh. Prithvi Singh, Resident of House No.1169, Second Floor, Sector-15, Chandigarh. ..…Appellants.V e r s u s 1. LIC Housing Finance Ltd., through its Area Manager, SCO No.2445-46, 1st Floor, Sector –22-C, Chandigarh. 2. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. (Registered and Corporate Office) through its Manager Bombay Life Bldg., 2nd Floor 45/47, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai-400001. ..…Respondents. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT. HON’BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Ms. Saloni Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.
Sh. O. P. Narang, Advocate for the respondents. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER 1. This is an appeal filed by the complainants against order dated 28.7.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No.1228 of 2008 vide which the complaint has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the case of the complainants is that they had taken loan of Rs.12.00 lacs from GE for housing purpose but later on after disbursement they came to know that the rate of interest of the GE was on higher side and therefore, the Complainants took loan from the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. (OP-1) at the lower rate of interest for repayment of loan of GE and for renovation etc. It was averred that the OP charged processing fee 1% on the loan amount of Rs.15.00 lacs, which was sanctioned on 25.06.2007 but disbursed only Rs.12.00 lacs on 30.08.2007. The first installment of Rs.12648/- of the loan became due on 31.10.2007 and the same was duly paid to the OP. The repayment period was 20 years. The Complainants, it was next averred, had paid first three EMI’s but due to non-sanctioning of claimed loan amount of Rs.15 Lacs, the next two EMIs for the months of January 2008 and February 2008 were not deposited by the Complainants. As per the Complainants, they deposited an amount of Rs.20,000/- in cash in March, 2008 in lieu of EMI default in the month of Jan, Feb, 2008 but in the month of April, May, June, 2008 there was again break in the payment of EMIs and subsequently, the Complainants deposited Rs.50,000/- in cash in the month of July, 2008. It was alleged that the agreed rate of interest at the time of entering into contract was 11.25% per annum but OP No.1 had charged excess amount as it had charged Rs.47,590/- as interest from 1.4.2007 to 3.3.2008 and from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009 for a period of 10 months charged Rs.86915/- as interest only. As per the complainants, at the time of entering into contract, it was agreed between the parties that if amount was fully paid before the stipulated time period, then no levy charges @2% of the loan amount would be taken as levy charges i.e. Rs.23,682.54Ps. It was next averred that 24 signed cheques of ICICI Bank in favor of the OP No.1 were still lying with the OP No.1 and after receiving the entire amount of the loan, the OP had given NOC after lot of humiliation and even retained the original papers of the house to harass the complainant. The complainants further alleged that after payment of entire loan amount in the month of August, 2008, they had suffered a lot on different scores. Alleging the above act of OPs as deficiency in service on their part, the complainant had filed the complaint before the learned District Forum. 3. The version of OPs is that the loan amount of Rs.12.00 lacs was sanctioned on 25.06.2007 for taking over the loan from GE and an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was separately sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 09.07.2007 and the total amount of loan sanctioned to the Complainants was Rs.15 lacs. IT was stated that the processing fee as upfront charges for sanctioned amount of Rs.15 lacs was rightly charged by the OPs. It was next pleaded that meanwhile, the Complainants became defaulters and thus amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was sanctioned subject to certain terms and conditions including regular payment of EMIs for the earlier loan of Rs.12 lakh and therefore, the same was not disbursed to them. As per OPs, they had charged interest as agreed and no excess amount had been charged. It was denied that the OPs had charged interest from the date of sanction of the loan instead the interest had been charged from the date of disbursal of loan i.e. 31.08.2007. It was further stated by the OPs that the Complainants had been defaulter from the beginning i.e. when the very first cheque of Rs.2,589/- given as pre EMI payment got bounced and several other ECS payments were also dishonoured. As per OPs, the Complainants did not maintain any financial discipline as required under the terms and condition of the sanction of the loan. As regards to the sale of mortgage property, OPs pleaded that the Complainants were required to clear the loan/all other dues over the property before selling the same. Averment as regards repayment of the entire loan amount by the complainants on 30.08.2008 had been admitted by the OPs. It was asserted that the Complainants were not disbursed the further loan of Rs.3.00 lakh as they were persistent defaulters and the defaulters were not to be given any further loan as per Rules. As per OPs, the documents were released to the Complainants after the repayment of the loan amount. It was stated by the OPs that the loan account was settled on 30.08.2008 and the NOC was duly issued to the Complainants on that very day and all the original documents were returned to them on 06.10.2008 i.e. with in a period of one month or so. Pleading no deficiency in service on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complainant. 4. The learned District Forum after going through the record on file has observed in the impugned order that the Complainants had failed to repay the due EMIs for the loan taken by him from the OPs on the scheduled dates. On perusal of the loan account statement (Annexure D-7), the learned District Forum opined that the Complainants had been persistent defaulters, atleast on 12 occasions when the EMIs deducted by the OPs through ECS bounced and thereby the amount of EMIs could not be credited to the loan account of the Complainants. It was next recorded by the learned District Forum that the Complainant himself admitted all this by saying that since he failed to pay the EMIs on the schedule dates and he used to deposit cash and some such instances had taken place in the month of March, 2008 when the complainant had deposited Rs.20,000/- in cash and Rs.50,000/- in the month of July, 2008. Thus, in the view of learned District Forum, the Complainant had not fulfilled the requirements of the loan taken by him from the OPs, for which OPs were not to be blamed. It was next recorded in the impugned order by the learned District Forum that though the Complainant had given 24 signed cheques of the ICICI Bank to OP-1 yet it was quite clear that since the ECS for EMIs were regularly bounced, there was no question of the OPs using the post dated cheques for payment of EMIs. Accordingly, the learned District Forum held that Complainant had suffered financial loss, mental and physical harassment only because of his own faults and shortcomings. It was surprising to the learned District Forum that how could the Complainant sell the residential property when the same had already been mortgaged with the OPs as security for the housing loan and the original documents including registered sale deed was in the physical possession of the OPs. Holding no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint by leaving the parties to bear their own costs of litigation. 5. Aggrieved by the said order of learned District Forum, the complainant has filed the present appeal seeking setting aside of the impugned order and awarding relief as prayed for in the complaint case. Sh. Saloni Sharma, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant whereas Sh. O. P. Narang, Advocate represented the respondents. Record of complaint case was also summoned from the District Forum concerned. 6. We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The only point to be settled in this appeal is whether the appellant/complainant had fulfilled the contractual obligations while repaying the loan amount to the OPs? 7. The most important document on record for the just decision of this case is the Loan Account Statement of the complainant (D-VII). On bare perusal of this statement, it is proved on record that the Complainants had been persistent defaulters for atleast 12 times as the EMIs deducted by the OPs through ECS bounced on 14.9.2007, 20.10.2007, 29.11.2007, 22.12.2007, 15.1.2008, 16.2.2008, 14.3.2008, 22.4.2008, 15.5.2008, 23.6.2008, 14.7.2008 and 18.8.2008. This clearly shows that the complainants failed to pay the EMIs on the schedule dates, which violated the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. It is also proved by the evidence on record that the complainants used to deposit cash against the defaulted EMIs as he had deposited in March, 2008 an Rs.20,000/- in cash and another sum of Rs.50,000/- in the month of July, 2008. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that that complainants were themselves at fault in not remitting the EMIs of the loan taken by them from the OPs, which is very much now proved on record vide Statement of Loan account (D-VII). Thus, the complainants cannot be extended any relief when they themselves have not fulfilled the requirements of the loan agreement. It is also very much clear from Exhibit D-II i.e. approval letter dated 25.6.2007 that the rate of interest after giving special concession was fixed at 11.25% per annum or as prevailing at the time of disbursement and the term of loan was 20 years. The complainants have duly signed this approval letter and have accepted the terms and conditions enshrined in this letter. Thus, the complainants have themselves agreed to the rate of interest at 11.25% p.a. and no excess rate of interest was ever charged by the OPs from them. Further, as per this letter, the prepayment fee was settled at 2% of the amount of loan prepaid. Taking the overall view of the documents on record particularly Statement of Loan Account (D-VII), we are of the considered opinion that the complainants themselves have not adhered to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and as such, no liability can be fastened on the OPs for the wrongs of the complainants. As regards the non disbursal of Rs.3 Lacs by the OPs, it is apparent on record that the complainants themselves were at fault by not repaying the EMIs of the previous loan of Rs.12 Lacs and this loan of Rs.3 Lacs was sanctioned subject to certain terms and conditions including regular payment of EMIs for the earlier loan of Rs.12 Lacs and thus, the OPs have rightly not disbursed the second installment of the loan of Rs.3 Lacs as per rules. Thus, we are in consonance with the view taken by the learned District Forum that there is no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and in our view, no interference is called for in the impugned order, which is just, fair and legal. 8. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit and the impugned order is upheld. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation. 9. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 27th August, 2010. Sd/- [JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT Sd/- [MRS. NEENA SANDHU] Ad/- MEMBER APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2009 Argued by: Ms. Saloni Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Sh. O. P. Narang, Advocate for the respondents. -.- Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, the appeal filed by the complainant has been dismissed. 27.8.2010 (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER)
| | HON'BLE MRS. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | |
