M/s New Aggarwal & Company filed a consumer case on 02 Jan 2024 against Managing Director, Indiabulls Home Loans in the DF-II Consumer Court. The case no is CC/328/2019 and the judgment uploaded on 02 Jan 2024.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,
U.T. CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No | : | 328 of 2019 |
Date of Institution | : | 17.05.2019 |
Date of Decision | : | 02.01.2024 |
M/s New Aggarwal & Company SCF No. 05, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh now shifted to Village Sarangpur, Dhanas, Chandigarh through its partner Mr. Yashpal Singla.
... Complainant
Versus
1] Managing Director, Indiabulls Home Loans, Indiabulls House No. 448-451, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurugram, Haryana -122001.
2] Branch Manager, Indiabulls Home Loans, SCO No. 347-348, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh.
3] Indiabulls Housing Finance Private Limited, House No. 448-451, Udyog Vihar, Phase V, Gurugram, Haryana.
4] Indiabulls Housing Finance Private Limited SCO NO. 347-348, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh
….. Opposite Parties
MR.B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER
Argued by : Sh.Shrey Goel, Counsel for the complainant
Ms.Niharika Goel, Counsel for OPs
ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT
The complainant company has filed the present complaint pleading that it availed loan against property from the OPs to the tune of Rs.1,45,10,000/- in August, 2015 while mortgaging House NO.165, Sector 15, Panchkula (Ann.C-1). It is submitted that the complainant paid all the installments to the OPs from time to time and never defaulted in the same. It is also submitted that as the complainant intended to pre-pay the balance loan amount, so made request to the OPs for prepayment of balance loan amount and to release the papers of mortgaged property. Thereafter, the OPs issued letter dated 06.04.2019 directing the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.1,39,43,617.70 on account of prepayment of loan. It is stated that the OPs have calculated an amount of Rs.1,32,34,791.74 as principal amount outstanding in the loan account whereas as per the calculation of the complainant, an amount of less than Rs.1,28,00,000/- approximately is due as principal outstanding amount. It is also stated that the OPs wrongly directed the complainant to pay prepayment charges of Rs.3,97,043.75 in violation to the instruction issued by the Reserve Bank of India apart from imposing GST on the principal outstanding amount. The complainant company agitated the matter with the OPs, sent legal notice to withdraw the demand made by the OPs vide letter dated 06.04.2019 but they did not pay any heed. Hence, this complaint has been filed with a prayer to direct the OPs to withdraw letter dated 06.04.2019 issued to the complainant company; direct the OPs to accept an amount of Rs.1,28,000/- and to release the documents of the mortgaged property and to pay compensation as well as litigation cost.
2] After notice of the complaint, the OPs have put in appearance and filed written version. The OPs while admitting the factual matrix of the case about disbursement of loan etc. stated that circular dated 14.07.2014 relied upon by the OPs has no binding upon the complainant as the complainant is not an "individual borrower" whereas the complainant is the partnership firm and the loan was sanctioned in favour of Yashpal Singla, Rajan Singla, New Aggarwal and Company through its partners Kamlesh, Chatarbuj Singla and Sons HUF (Ann. OP/1 & OP/2). It is stated that as per the terms & conditions of the loan agreement (Ann.OP/2) it was agreed upon between both the contracting parties that in the event of prepayment of the loan prepayment charges shall be levied. It is submitted that the amount calculated as per letter dated 06.04.2019 was just and proper and as such there was no scope of variance in the figure. Lastly denying all other allegations, the OPs have prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
3] Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of OPs as made in their reply.
4] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5] We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and perused the entire documents on record including written arguments.
6] The question to be decided whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs in demanding pre-payment/foreclosure charges from the complainant while pre-closing its loan account or not ?
7] To find out answer to this issue, it is important to take into consideration the following facts and circumstances of the present complaint:-
It is established from the facts & documents on record that the complainant is a Company namely M/s New Aggarwal & Company and the loan has been sanctioned & disbursed to complainant company vide Ann.C-1 (Sanction Letter) to the tune of Rs.1,45,10,000/-. Thus it is observed that that complainant company is not an individual borrower. The Circular dated 14.7.2014 issued by the Reserve Bank of India, relied upon by the complainant company as Ann.C-6 is of no help to it, as the complainant is a company and not an “individual borrower”. Hence, it is opined that the demand of the OPs for pre-payment/foreclosure charges for early closer of loan availed by the complainant company cannot be said to be unjustified. Therefore, no deficiency in service is made out against the OPs.
8] Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
9] Pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.
02.01.2024 Sd/-
(AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(B.M.SHARMA)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.