Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/326/2013

SIVEETHA GANESHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

17 Jun 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH           :     PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                             :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 326 of 2013

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.5 of 2011 dated 10.01.2013 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Villupuram.

 

Friday, the 17^th day of June 2022

 

Suvidha Ganesan

S/o. Erusa Gounder

President

Thirukovilur Taluk Consumer

     Protection Sangam

3/192, Munusamy Road

Thirukovilur Taluk

Villupuram District.                                                    .. Appellant/ Complainant

 

- Vs –

1.   Area Manager

      LIC Housing Finance Limited

      36, Katpadi Road

      Gandhi Nagar

      Vellore – 632 006

 

2.    Branch Manager

       LIC of India

       Thirukovilur.

 

3.    N. Babu

       Engineer

       D. No.22, Theppakulam  Street

       Thirukovilur   (Given up)                    .. Respondents/ Opposite Parties

   

  Counsel for Appellant / Complainant                         : Party – in - person

  Counsel for the 1^st Respondent/1^st Opposite Party   : M/s. S. Kumaraswamy

  Counsel for the 2^nd Respondent/2^nd Opposite Party : M/s. Michael Marie Antony

         

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 20.04.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the appellant and the counsel for the Respondents and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

1.       This appeal has been filed by the Complainant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as against the order dated 10.01.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Villupuram, in C.C. No.5 of 2011, dismissing the complaint, with compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/-.

 

2.  The factual background culminating in this appeal is as follows:  The case of the Complainant is that on 07.11.1994 he submitted a loan application along with connected documents to LIC Housing Finance Limited.  On 18.11.1994 his loan application was considered and loan amount of Rs.70,000/- was sanctioned.  It was agreed that 15.5% interest has to be paid on the balance loan outstanding amount at the end of the year. Subsequently, the interest rate was reduced to 15% p.a.  On 08.02.1995, the loan amount of Rs.54,000/- was released to the complainant, at the reduced interest rate of 15% p.a.  On 08.02.1995, the balance loan amount of Rs.16,000/- was paid to the complainant and the EMI payable by the complainant was fixed as Rs.1019/- per month.  The complainant was regularly repaying the loan amount on monthly basis.   Subsequently, the loan was rewritten and the rate of interest was revised to 8.25% p.a. in Fixed Rate Method on Annual Rest Basis.  For this purpose the complainant was asked to give a fresh Declaration form.  Accordingly, the complainant had submitted a Declaration. Whileso, on 01.02.2004, the complainant received a letter from the 1^st opposite party, along with Declaration Form to convert the loan availed by the complainant from Fixed Rate Interest to Floating Rate of Interest, at the same interest of 8.25% p.a, with effect from March 2004.  He was also asked to pay a sum of Rs.380/- along with the Declaration form.  When the complainant questioned the collection of fees, he was informed that they would refund the said amount, later.   It is the further case of the complainant that as per the original schedule the entire loan amount ought to have been closed in the year 2006 itself, since the complainant was regularly paying the Equated Monthly Instalments.  When the complainant approached the opposite party regarding this issue, there was no proper reply. Therefore, the complainant went to the office of the 1^st opposite party on 17.10.2006 and closed the loan amount, by paying the total outstanding amount of Rs.17,620/- by way of demand draft and asked the opposite party to return all the documents submitted by him at the time of obtaining the loan.  But, the documents were not returned.  Since there was neither any reply to the letters of the complainant nor the documents were returned, the complainant went in person and received the documents.  It is the further ground of the complainant that though interest was fixed at 8.25% p.a., the opposite party has charged interest at the rate of 9% p.a. upto 30.06.2006 and thereafter 9.5%.  Furthermore, the opposite parties have not refunded the conversion charges as agreed by them.  Hence, the complainant has sent a notice on 13.02.2007 claiming compensation for the deficiency of service committed by the opposite parties.  Since, there is no reply from the opposite parties, the complainant has come forward with the present complaint, seeking for the following direction to the opposite parties:

1. to re-pay a sum of Rs.44,183/- the excess amount collected towards principal and interest;
2. to re-pay a sum of Rs.17,620/- being the principal amount sent in the month of October;
3. to re-pay a sum of Rs.380/- collected towards the handling charges for re-writing the loan document;
4. to re-pay a sum of Rs.349.50 collected towards levy charges;
5. to pay a sum of Rs.18,600/- towards interest for the loss of interest;
6. to pay a sum of Rs.867.50 towards postal expenses;
7. to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- towards litigation expenses; and
8. to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and sufferings.

 

 3.  The said case was resisted by the opposite parties filing a written version stating that a sum of Rs.70,000/- was sanctioned as loan to the complainant on 17.11.1994.  The interest was 15% at the time of sanctioning of the loan.  Subsequently, it was reduced to 9% upto 30.06.2006 and 9.5% from 01.07.2006 onwards.  These facts were informed to the complainant.  The complainant repaid the loan amount on various instalments.  On 25.10.2006, the balance loan amount of Rs.346/- was paid by the complainant by way of a cheque and the loan was closed.  The complainant closed the loan by paying a sum of Rs.17,620/- plus Rs.346/- without any objection and released his title deeds.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  The loan has been closed on 25.10.2006 and the title deeds have been handed over to the complainant on 13.11.2006 itself.  If at all the complainant has any grievance, he ought to have filed the complaint within a period of two years.  The present Appeal has been filed to make unlawful gain and it is a vexatious one.  The reliefs claimed are contradictory to each other and it is not only unlawful but also arbitrary one.  Thus, the opposite parties sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

 

4.   In order to prove the case, the complainant has filed proof affidavit along with 17 documents, which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A17.  On the side of the opposite parties, along with proof affidavit, 1 document was filed and the same is marked as Ex.B1. 

 

5.  The District Forum, after analyzing the entire evidence on records, has dismissed the complaint with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.  Aggrieved by the said order passed by the District Forum, the present appeal is filed by the complainant. 

 

6.    Keeping in mind the submissions made by the appellant/ complainant and the counsel for the respondents/ opposite parties, we have carefully gone through the material available on record.   At the outset we have to state that the averments made in the complainant are so vague and bald to draw any inference on the cause of action.

 

7.  The main contention of the complainant is that both the opposite parties agree that the loan has been sanctioned on 18.11.1994 with an interest of 15% and later they have collected 9% interest.  Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint asking for the excess interest collected by them as well as to refund the sum of Rs.380/- collected by them towards handling charges for re-writing the loan document, with regard to reduction of interest, we find that as per Ex.A6, Declaration Form, the opposite parties have converted the loan availed by the complainant from Fixed Rate of Interest to Floating Rate of Interest.  In the declaration form signed by the complainant, he has accepted for fixation of floating rate of interest, with clear understanding.  Having agreed for the Floating Rate of Interest, now he cannot have any grievance with regard to the rate of interest charged by the opposite parties.  In fact, the opposite parties had given clear statement of accounts.  Moreover, the Loan Account has been closed in the year 2006. Under such circumstances, as contended by the opposite parties, the complainant ought to have filed the complaint within a period of two years i.e. on or before 2008.  Whereas, this complaint has been filed, with a delay of 3 years.   Looking at any angle, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum.  We find that the complainant has not made out any case before this Commission.  Taking advantage of his position as Vice President of Tirukkovilur Taluk Consumer’s Protection Organization, the complainant has approached the District Commission with a vexatious complaint.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the District Forum has rightly imposed compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/-.

 

 

8.     In the result, the order dated 10.01.2013 passed in C.C. No.5 of 2011 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Villupuram is confirmed.

Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed.

 

 

Sd/-                                                                Sd/-

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                         R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                         PRESIDENT