STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                             UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

                                                APPEAL NO.1878 OF 2008

1.      Smt. Ranjit Kaur, Aged 51 years (wife);

2.      Sh. Taranpreet Singh, Aged 26 years (son);

3.      Sh. Harkamalpreet Singh, Aged 21 years (son);

Being Legal Heirsof Late Sh. Amrik Singh son of S. Pritam Singh R/o H.No.HL-592, Phase 9, SAS Nagar (Mohali).

                                                                                                            ….Appellants.

Versus

LIC Housing Finance Limited, SCO No.2445-46, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Authorised Officer.

                                                                                                            ….Respondent.

BEFORE:             HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

                        HON’BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:            Sh. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

                        Sh. O. P. Narang, Advocate for the respondent.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.                     This is an appeal filed by the complainant against order dated 25.8.2008 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 852 of 2007 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

2.                     Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he took a housing loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from OP i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- in Nov., 1997 and Rs.2,50,000/- in March, 1998 and the same was to be repaid in Equated Monthly Installments by 15^th of every month commencing from 15.11.97 for 15 years at the fluctuating interest rate of 16% per annum.  As per the complainant, he was paying the EMIs regularly but on 24.2.2003, when he deposited Rs.15,000/- in cash, its receipts was reflecting the outstanding installments balance to be Rs.15,514/- and therefore, the complainant further deposited Rs.35,000/- on 28.2.2003. It was next averred that inspite of this, OP sent letter dated 28.8.2003 asking the complainant to deposit Rs.1,37,540/- by 30.8.2003 but no statement of accounts was supplied to the complainant.  Thereafter, on 18.1.2004, OP gave a public notice in the newspaper ‘The Tribune’ along with photograph of complainant (C-6) vide which the complainant was shown to be a defaulter. It was averred that in this publication, the due amount was shown to be Rs.1,77,572/- (outstanding loan of Rs.3,42,664/-) whereas as per the letter dated 28.8.2003 (C-5), the amount was shown to be Rs.1,37,540/- and further as per receipt dated 24.2.2003 (C-3), the amount was shown to be Rs.15,514/-, which were contradictory.  Subsequently, in the month of January, 2004, the complainant deposited a total sum of Rs.60,000/- with OP.   It was next averred that OP sent a notice to the complainant under Section 13(2) of the Securitization Act, 2002 on 11.10.2004 and demanded demanding an amount of Rs.5,09,311.07 (Rs.3,421,654/- as principal & Rs.1,68,210.80 as interest) and it failed to take into account an amount of Rs.60,000/- already deposited by the complainant in January, 2004.  As per the complainant, on 24.12.2004 OP demanded an amount of Rs.68,000/- to be deposited by 31.12.2004  and further sent a letter dated 3.3.2005 (C-13) demanding Rs.1,97,885.70 payable by 15.3.2005. The case of the complainant is that once he had already paid an amount of Rs.4,50,000/-, he requested the OP to correct the amount of Rs.1,97,885.70 and to supply him the statement of accounts/correct information but to no avail. It was next averred that on 22.3.2005, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- with OP. As per the complainant, he had paid a total sum of Rs.4,37,148/- and Rs.4,01,706.80 was due as per the higher rate of interest, which was not reduced a per the R.B.I. It was next averred by the complainant that on 3.9.2005 he deposited Rs.3000/- with OP but even then the OP forcefully took the possession of his house on 27.9.2005 (C-17) by not adhering to the norms of the Securitization Act, 2002.  Terming the aforesaid acts of OP as deficiency in service due, the complainant had filed a complaint before the learned District Forum.

3.             The version of OP is that the housing loan of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rs.2,50,000/- on 19.9.97 & Rs.1,00,000/- on 26.2.98) was granted to the complainant at the agreed rate of interest of 16% per annum with penal interest @3% p.a. in case of default. It was stated that the complainant was not paying the EMIs regularly and was a defaulter since April, 2002 ad as such, he was issued the Recall Notice dated 24.4.2004 and further issued Demand Notice dated 11.8.2004 u/s 13(2) of the Securitization Act, 2002.  OP next stated that the loan account of complainant had already been closed with OP Company and the title deed & other documents had been released to the complainant vide letter dated 7.11.2005, which the complainant received on 8.11.2005.  As per the OP, the complainant was to pay the EMI by 1^st of every month but throughout he had been the defaulter and he did not adhere to the repayment schedule and violated the terms & conditions of the loan agreement. Pleading no deficiency in service on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             The learned District Forum, in its analysis of the complaint, observed that when loan account of the complainant had been closed and OP Company had released his title deed & other documents on 7.11.2005 received by the complainant on 8.11.2005, no cause of action had accrued to the complainant at this juncture.  It further recorded that when a suit filed by the complainant/plaintiff before the Civil Judge, Chandigarh had been  dismissed might be as withdrawn by the complainant, the present complaint could not succeed. The learned District Forum after going through the documents on record further observed that the complainant had been a defaulter in paying his due installments in time, so the complainant being a defaulter was not entitle for any relief and moreover, he could not be permitted to take benefit of his own wrongs. Thus, finding no merit in the complaint, the learned District Forum dismissed the same.

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 his complaint case. Sh. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants/complainants whereas Sh. O.P. Narang, Advocate represented the respondent/OP.

6.                     The learned counsel for the appellant argued that no settlement was ever made between the parties, rather, the appellant/complainant had vide Annexure C-18 i.e. Statement of the complainant and order dated 24.10l.2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Chandigarh) had only withdrew his suit for mandatory & permanent injunction. It was next contended that the complainant had took a housing loan for Rs.3,50,000/- in November 1997 out of which Rs.1 Lac was taken in November 1997 and Rs.2,50,000/- in March 2008, which was to be repaid in Equated Monthly Installments by 15^th of every month commencing with Rs.306/- on 15.11.97 and Rs.3,750/- w.e.f. 15.12.97 to 15.8.98 and thereafter @Rs.4,600/- per month from 15.9.98 onwards. It was further argued that on 20.10.2005, the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.9,90,148/- in 6 ½ years as per the statement at Page No.27 of appeal paper book whereas he had to pay an amount of Rs.8,20,350/- up to march 2013 (period of 15 years) as per the agreed rate of interest.

7.                     On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/OP argued that as the compromise has been affected between the parties, so no cause of action had arisen against the OP. Moreover, the complainant has himself defaulted in paying the EMIs and hence, the order passed by the learned District Forum is just, fair and legal and it need no interference. He finally prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.

8.                     The main point for consideration before us is that whether any settlement was arrived at between the parties as has been recorded by the learned District Forum in Para No.9 of the impugned order?

9.                 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record on file especially Annexure R-VI, which is an affidavit of Sh. Amrik Singh, complainant dated 22.10.2005, it is established that the complainant had withdraw the civil suit as the matter had been compromised between the parties and he did not want to pursue the case anymore. 

10.                   So far as the second contention of the complainant/appellant as regards charging of excess amount from him is concerned, we are of the considered view that the Bank is entitled to charge penal interest along with interest as agreed upon between the parties vide the loan agreement and here in the instant case, the rate of interest was fixed at 16% and in case of default, 3% more was to be charged as penal interest. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that at number of times, the complainant had defaulted in not paying the regular EMIs and to prove this fact, the OPs have placed on record detailed Loan Account Statement pertaining to the complainant. From this statement, it is very much proved that the complainant had defaulted for 39 times in paying the EMIs as per the detailed statement, failing which OP company was charged penal interest and other charges on the EMI due. As the complainant is defaulter in paying the EMIs, hence, the OP company has rightly charged him interest/penal interest. Thus, at this stage, no relief can be extended to the complainant for his own wrongs. The learned District Forum has thus rightly dismissed the complaint of the appellant on these two scores, firstly in view of the Annexure C-18 i.e. the statement of Sh. Amrik Singh withdrawing the civil suit as well as R-VI, his own affidavit wherein he had compromised the matter in full and final and secondly, he himself had defaulted in repaying the EMIs, which attracted the addl. Interest/penal charges.

11.                   In view of the foregoing discussion, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. However, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation.

12.                   Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

16^th September 2010.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 [MRS. NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                                           MEMBER

Ad/-

                                                APPEAL NO.1878 OF 2008

Argued by:            Sh. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

                        Sh. O. P. Narang, Advocate for the respondent.

                                       -.-

                    Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

16.9.2010                                           (PRESIDENT)                         (MEMBER)