BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE.

PRESENT:   THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L.,                PRESIDENT        

                               TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E.                              MEMBER – I

                              THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC.              MEMBER – II

CC.26 / 2003

TUESDAY THE 19^TH  DAY OF OCTOBER 2010.                                

V. Nalini Navakumari,

W/o. E. Kanimozhi,

No.9, Vedachalam Street,

Arakkonam – 631 001.

Vellore District.                                                                          …  Complainant.

       - Vs -

1. The Manager,

     Vysya Bank Housing Finance Ltd.,

     IInd Floor, No.185, Mount Road,

     Madras – 6.

2. The Chief Manager,

     Vysya Bank,

     No.75, IInd Floor, Hulkul Complex,

     Lalbagh Road,

     Bangalore – 27.                                                                … Opposite parties.  

. . . .

              This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 29.9.2010, in the presence of Thiru.K. Munusamy, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. G. Balamurugan, Advocate for the opposite paries, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:

O R D E R

            Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District.

1.         The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows:   

            The  complainant had availed a Housing Loan under VBHL/MAS 464 a sum of  Rs.4,20,000/- from the 1^st opposite party on 18.4.01 for the construction of House situated at No.64/45, Thirumalai Achari Street, Arakkonam Town, Vellore District.  The rate of interest was fixed at Rs.12.50% per annum.  The loan has to be repaid to the 1^st opposite party in 180 monthly installments equated at Rs.5277/-.  The 1^st installment commencing from 1.5.01.  The complainant has regularly repaying the monthly installment amounts to the 1^st opposite party.  Till 8.1.03  she has repaid the monthly instalments a sum of Rs.1,01,836/-.  Since the complainant unable to meet her commitment to the bank she was constrained to sell her property and settled the entire loan outstanding.  The complainant on 8.1.03 informed to the 1^st opposite party to foreclosure the loan amount.  The complainant arranged the purchaser to sell her property for a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- to one G. Devaki Rani W/o. Durairaj in the month of December 2002.  Though she has arranged the purchaser to sell her property to clear the loan amount to the 1^st opposite party in the month of December 2002, the 1^st opposite party has foreclose the loan amount only in the month of April 2003.  Because of delay of the 1^st opposite party the complainant sustained the he loss.    The 1^st opposite party preclosure the loan amount only in the month of April 2003.  The 1^st opposite party has wrongly calculated the interest amount.  Though the complainant is liable to pay a sum of rS.4,10,078/- taking advantage of the complainants position he has collected a sum of Rs.4,78,820/-.  The 1^st opposite party compelled the complainant to pay the sum of Rs.4,78.820/- in order to settle the account.  The opposite party has collected sum of  Rs.57,411/- towards preclosure charges, besides another sum of  Rs.2,243/- Rs.5,471/- Rs.14,4,83/- and Rs.76/-.  The 1^st opposite party collected an excess amount of Rs.79,684/- from the complainant.   The 1^st opposite party cannot be allowed to cheat an innocent customer who have availed small loans for purchasing dwelling units.   If this practice is allowed to continued public would loose faith in the banking system.  The complainant preferred a complaint to the 1^st opposite party on 23.4.03 and requested him to refund the excess amount collected from the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party not taken any steps to refund the amount to the complainant inspite of my repeated personal demands.   In spite of my complaint dated 23.4.03 and 5.5.03 the opposite parties not taken any steps either to repay the amount or not send any reply to the complainant.  The action of the opposite parties caused great mental agony and tension to the complainant.  The opposite parties are guilty not only of gross negligence but also of the deficiency of service and also amounts to unfair trade practice.  Therefore prayed this Forum to direct the opposite parties to refund the excess amount collected from the complainant sum of Rs.79,684/- with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. till the realization and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages, mental agony, tension that was caused due to the negligent attitude of the 1^st opposite party and to pay the costs of the complaint.

2.         The averment in the counter filed by the opposite parties are as follows;

            The opposite parties do not admit any of the allegations stated in the complaint to be true except those are herein after specifically admitted and puts the complainant to strict proof of the rest of the allegations.  The opposite parties admit in the averments of in the 4^th para of the complaint, and strictly denies all other averments in the complaint.  The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party, and she was sanctioned a housing loan of RS.4,20.000/- by DHFL Vysya Housing Finance Ltd., at Madras Branch Office.  The loan amount was disbursed on 18.4.01.  The loan was sanctioned for a fixed period of 180 months, at a fixed rate of interest of 12.5% for the entire loan period, the complainant has executed the loan agreement, pro-note, mortgage in respect of the loan accordingly.   The complainant has closed the loan in full on 24.3.03 as per our office instructions the 1^st opposite party, collected 1% preclosure charges for every year for remaining period of the loan on the outstanding balance, the pre-closure charges are collected accordingly, Rs.57,411/- on the outstanding balance of Rs.4,10,078/- as on 1.4.02 at the beginning of the financial year.  As per article 2.8 (a) of loan agreement executed by the complainant, the company may in its sole discretion and on such terms as to pre-payemnt charges etc permit prepayment at the request of  the borrower.  Hence the charges collected is in order.  The complainant has paid a penal interest of Rs.2,635/- she paid it form the date of avail of the loan till the date of closure of loan on 31.3.03, and not for full 15 years as stated in the complaint.   The housing loans granted are refinanced by National Housing Bank and other commercial banks.  For prepayment of such loans the opposite parties are requested to pay pre-closure charges.  This has prompted the 2^nd opposite party, to levy the charges as above, it has clearly mentiond in Article-2.8 of the loan agreement singed by the complainant.   The opposite parties did not know that the complainants was to sell her house for a sum of  Rs.5,40,000/- to one Devaki Rani W/o Durairaj.  The complainant, paid the amount only in the month of March 2003, hence the foreclosure made in April 2003 .  The opposite parties denies the calculations mentioned in the 7^th para of the complainant.  The opposite parties vehemently denies the averments mentioned in the 8^th para of the complaint, it has not cheated the complainant the opposite parties not liable to pay not even a single rupee for damages, for mental agony and tension to the complainant.    It is therefore prayed that this Forum may please to dismiss  this vexatious complainant as against the opposite parties, and award cost of this petition.

3.         Now the points for consideration are:

a)  Whether there is any deficiency in service, on 

                 the part of the opposite party?

            b)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the

                reliefs asked for?.

4.         Ex.A1 to ExA5 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.  Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite parties have been filed.  No oral evidence let in by either side. 

5.         POINT NO.  (a):

            It is admitted fact of the parties that the complainant was sanctioned a  Housing Loan of Rs.4,20,000/- from the 1^st opposite party’s VBHFL at Madras Branch office and the said loan amount was disbursed on 18.4.2001 for fixed a period of 180 monthly installments equated at Rs.5277/-, at fixed rate of interest of 12.5. p.a. for the entire loan period.   The complainant closed the loan in full on 24.3.03.

6.         The complainant contended that at the time of foreclosure of loan amount that the complainant liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,10,078/- taking advantage of the complainant’s  position the 1^st opposite party collected an excess amount of Rs.79,684/- i.e. in total Rs.4,78,820/- in spite of complainant’s compliant dt. 23.4.03 and 5.5.03 the opposite parties did not take any steps either to repay the excess amount collected from the complainant.  Therefore the opposite parties are guilty not only of gross negligence but also of the deficiency of service and also amounts to unfair trade practice. 

7.         The opposite party contended that as per Article 2.8.(a) of loan agreement Ex.B3 executed by the complainant the 1^st opposite party VBHFL may, in its sole discretion and on such terms as to pre-payment charges etc. permit pre-payment at the request of the borrower.  Hence, the charges collected in an order accordingly as on  1.4.02 the outstanding balance is Rs.4,10,078/-, service charges Rs.2,559/- + Rs.76/- and as per article 2.8 and 2.9. pre paid charges calculated Rs.50,411/- in total Rs.4,78,820/- collected from the complainant in order to settle the account.  The complainant paid the amount only in the month of March’2003, hence the foreclosure made in April 2003.   Therefore there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

8.         Based on Housing Loan application submitted by the complainant before the 1^st opposite party VBHFL.  As per letter Ex.B1, the complainant was sanctioned a Housing loan of Rs.4,20,000/- from the 1^st opposite party’s VBHFL at Madras Branch and the said loan amount was disbursed on 18.4.01 to the complainant.  The complainant has not denied the contention of the 1^st opposite party that at the time of receive the said loan amount the complainant has executed the loan agreement Ex.B3, Pronote Mortgage in respect of the property.  According to the 1^st opposite party that the complainant has closed the loan in full on 24.3.03 as per their office instructions the 1^st opposite party collected 1% pre-closure charges for every year for remaining period of the loan on the outstanding balance is pre-closure charges are collected accordingly Rs.57,411/- on the outstanding amount Rs.4,10,078/- as on 1.4.02 at the beginning of the financial year regarding the pre-closure charges as above it has mentioned in article 2.8. of the loan amount signed by the complainant.  It is admitted fact that at the time of pre-closure the loan outstanding balance amount is Rs.4,10,078/-.  From the perusal of letter of offer  Ex.B2, dt.18.04.01 it is mentioned in column No.10 that “Repayment of loan in full in advance of the schedule will be permitted as per prevailing rules and pre-closure charges of VBHFL.   The loan amount Ex.B3, dt. 18.4.01 executed by the complainant the article 2.8. pre- payment and article 2.9 commitment charges are stated is as follows:

2.8. Pre-payment:

       a) VBHFL may, in its sole discretion and on such terms as to pre-payment charges, etc. as it may prescribe permit acceleration of EMIS or pre-payment at the request of the borrower.

       b)  The borrower undertakes, in the event of preclosure, to pay interest on the outstanding amount till the end of that month irrespective of any date the preclosure is made.

2.9. Commitment  Charges

       The borrower shall pay to VBHFL a Commitment charges at the rate 1% per annum on the principal amount of the loan or any part thereof as the case may be, which shall not have been drawn and shall not have been cancelled by VBHFL, as per the rules of VBHFL in that behalf, as in force from time to time.   

Therefore it is clear that in the event of preclosure the borrower undertakes, to pay interest on the outstanding amount till the end of that month irrespective of any date the preclosure is made and borrower shall pay to VBHFL a commitment charges at the rate 1% per annum on the principal amount of the loan or any part thereof as the case may be.   Therefore the 1^st opposite party collected 1% pre-closure charges for every year for remaining period of the loan on the outstanding balance of Rs.4,10.078/- accordingly the pre-closure charges Rs.57,411/- collected from the complainant.  Further the complainant paid a penal interest of Rs.2,635/- from the date of avail of the loan till the date of closure of loan on 31.3.03 and not for  full 15 years.  Therefore the contention of the complainant that the 1^st opposite party collected an excess  amount of Rs.79,684/- from the complainant is not acceptable.  Hence, the complainant has not proved the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

9.         Hence, taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention in the  complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of the both the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to A5 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties  herein.  Hence we answer this point (a) as against the complainant herein.

10.       POINT NO. (b):-

            In view of our findings on point (a), since, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties herein.   We have also come to the conclusion that the complainant is not at all entitled to any relief asked for by him, in this complaint.  Hence we answer this point (b) also as against the complainant herein.

11.                   In the result this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the  19^th day of October 2010.

MEMBER-I                               MEMBER-II                                            PRESIDENT.

List of Documents:

Complainant’s Exhibits:

Ex.A1- 18.4.01          - X-copy of letter of offer.

Ex.A2- 23.4.03          - X-copy of complaint to 1^st opp party.

Ex.A3-      --                - X-copy of Ack. Card.

Ex.A4- 5.5.03            - X-copy of letter from the complainant to the opp parties.          

Ex.A5-                        - X-copy of Courier Receipts.

Opposite parties’ Exhibits:

Ex.B1- --                     - X-copy of Loan Application Form.

Ex.B2- 18.4.01          - X-copy of letter of offer.

Ex.B3-            --          - X-copy of Loan Agreement.

Ex.B4-            --          - X-copy of Calculation Sheet.

Ex.B5-            --          - X-copy of House Sale Deed.

EMBER-I                               MEMBER-II                                                        PRESIDENT.