BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.350 of 2016

Date of Instt. 12.08.2016

Date of Decision: 25.07.2017

Kapil Kumar, Plot No.18, New Anand Nagar, G.T. Road, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. M/s Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd, through its Managing Director C-54-55, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Opp. Mical, Guindy, Chennai-600032.

2. Manager M/s Cholamandlam Investment & Finance Company Ltd., BMC Chowk, Jalandhar.

….… Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. Rahul Sharma, Adv Counsel for complainant.

Sh. Vikas Sood, Adv Counsels for OP No.1 and 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. The instant complaint filed by complainant, wherein alleged that complainant is a consumer for the M/s Cholamandlam Investment & Finance Company Ltd., and got financed the house against Housing Loan Agreement No.XOHEJRH00000901104 dated 13.02.2013 for Rs.1,25,00,000/-. The period of the loan was from 05.03.2013 to 05.02.2025. As per the loan, it was given assurance by the representative of the respondent that there will be no foreclosure prepayment charges in case of the complainant opted to foreclose the account. The complainant was not satisfied with the working as well as for the interest charged by the respondent, therefore, the complainant shifted his loan account by way of foreclosure of the account to some other bank. The said loan was taken over by another bank and said amount was fully satisfied. But the respondent charged foreclosure charges/prepayment penalties to the tune of Rs.5,31,152/- as on 23.08.2014 illegally arbitrary against the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India as per notification DNBS (PD) CC No.399/03.10.52/2014-2015. Copy of the said notification is attached herewith. The account statement showing the foreclosure prepayment penalties of Rs.5,31,152/- is also attached herewith. The respondent illegally arbitrary playing unethical norms and acted negligently and not provided the services as per law and illegally extracted Rs.5,32,152/- on 23.08.2014. The complainant at that time agreed to pay the amount as he required to transfer his loan account. Thereafter, the complainant number of times, approached the respondent No.2 at Jalandhar office, but they always made one pretext or the other and made the process linger on. The complainant has got the loan on 13.02.2013 for the period 05.03.2013 to 05.02.2025. The respondent No.2 illegally charged Rs.5,31,152/- on 23.08.2014. That the OP has not returned the amount of Rs.5,31,152/- in accordance with the notification as stated above. The complainant requested number of times to OP from the period 24.08.2014 to till date but all in vain and as such there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP which give arise to file the instant complaint with the prayer that the OPs be directed to return the amount of Rs.5,31,152/-, the amount already illegally charged by the respondent on account of foreclosure prepayment charges and further OP be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency of service and negligence and also pay a litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and further averred that initially the complainant alongwith other persons got the financial assistance from the respondent and at that time they assured to make the payment. At that time even written agreement was duly executed between the parties. The terms and conditions of the agreement are binding on the parties. The interest along with all the charges have been charged as per norms, terms and conditions of the agreement, RBI guidelines and market. So, the present complaint is not maintainable. Once the complainant has already closed this loan account without any protest it means he has already given his consent for the same. It is further alleged that the complainant is not a consumer as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The present compliant cannot be filed under Consumer Protection Act, hence liable to be dismissed. On merits, all the averments as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents i.e. copy of notification Ex.C1, statement of accounts Ex.C2 and legal notice Ex.C3 and then closed the evidence.

5. Similarly, counsel for OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith documents Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/14 and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. After hearing the arguments, it reveals that the claim of the complainant is very simple that he has obtained a loan from the OP on 13.02.2013 for a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- for the period 05.03.2013 to 05.02.2025, but during that period the complainant was not satisfied with the interest rate charged by the OP and accordingly the complainant shifted his loan account by way of foreclosure of the account to some other bank but without any rule, term and condition, the OP has charged foreclosure prepayment charges from the complainant to the tune of Rs.5,31,152/-, which has been shown in the statement of account Ex.C2 and for return of the same, a legal notice Ex.C3 was given but all in vain.

8. To the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP submitted that the loan is not availed by any individual rather it was availed by partnership firm and the letter/notification referred by the complainant Ex.C1 is not applicable in the present case because that is helpful to the borrower, who took individual loan but in this case the loan is not individual rather the documents Ex.OP/2 to Ex.OP/12 itself shows that the loan was obtained by the members of the partnership firm and therefore the charges made by the OP is according to rule and regulation as well as instruction of the RBI. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed.

9. We have considered the respective contention of both the party and find that the OP has charged not only foreclosure prepayment charges rather also charged interest alongwith other charges according to term and condition of the agreement as well as guidelines of the RBI. We have gone through the notification Ex.C1 and find that the said notification is virtually beneficial for the individual borrower but in the present case, if we go through the documents brought on file by the OP i.e. loan sanctioned letter Ex.OP/2, which shows the name of the applicant Kapil Kumar and co-applicant Kiran Mehta, Chaman Lal, M/s C.L. Sons, M/s Ceeson Exports. So, it means that the loan was not taken by Kapil Kumar in individual capacity rather taken the loan on behalf of the partnership firm and even Ex.OP/2 is signed by all the partners i.e. Kapil Kumar, Kiran Mehta and Chaman Lal. Similarly the other documents i.e. application Ex.OP/3, Demand Promissory Note-borrowers Ex.OP/5, Letter of Continuity Ex.OP/6, Letter of General Lien and Set Off borrower Ex.OP/7, General Power of Attorney Ex.OP/8, Form of mortgage by deposit of title deed Ex.OP/9, letter of authority by partnership firm Ex.OP/10 and declaration for submission of PDC Ex.OP/11, all the aforesaid documents are signed by all the partners for M/s CL Sons Firm and for M/s Ceeson Exports Firm being a partner of both the firms. So, accordingly, it is established that the said loan was not taken as individual by the complainant. Therefore, notification of the RBI is not applicable in this case and accordingly we find that the OP has rightly charged foreclosure prepayment charges because the complainant opted to foreclose the account and there is no illegality and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and therefore the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

25.07.2017 Member President