CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.14/2008

SH. VIJAY KUMAR

S/O LATE SH. TARA CHAND

R/O K-18, AKAL GARH, FATEH NAGAR,

JAIL ROAD, TILAK NAGAR,

NEW DELHI-110018

…………. COMPLAINANT                                                                                     

                                    VS.

THE MANAGER/CHIEF MANAGER/SR. MANAGER

CITY FINANCE CONSUMER FINANCE INDIA LTD.

3 L.S.C. PUSHP VIHAR,

NEW DELHI-110062

…………..RESPONDENT

Date of Order: 22.03.2016

O R D E R

A.S. Yadav – President

The case of the complainant is that OP sanctioned a loan of different amounts to complainant against mortgage of his property bearing No.K-18, Fateh Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. 

On 19.06.2007 complainant was assured by OP to sanction loan of Rs.10 lakhs against property No. No.19B, DDA Flat No.208, Multi storey, Dwarka, New Delhi against which a loan of Rs.10 lakhs was to be sanctioned.  A sum of Rs.1000/- was also given by complainant in respect of this loan.  Further despite repeated requests, the loan was not sanctioned.

Complainant then asked OP to allow him to deposit the entire amount of his loan which was taken against property No.K-18, Fateh Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.  On 20.07.07 OP charged Rs.8,36,825/- against total balance of Rs.7,94,987.75 i.e. Rs.41,840.25 extra charges and a receipt was issued to complainant by OP.

Even after collection of the aforesaid amount, the documents were not returned to complainant.  Even after payment of the whole balance amount of the loan on 24.7.07, OP dishonestly charged Rs.11,945/- more as EMI through ECS.  A legal notice was issued to OP on 12.10.07 asking OP to pay Rs.2 lakhs as damages including amount extra charged by OP.  It is prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.2 lakhs against the total loss caused to complainant.

OP in its reply took the plea that complaint is liable to be dismissed as no cause arose in favour of complainant and against OP as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

It is submitted that complaint approached OP at different times for grant of loan and accordingly he was disbursed the loan at different times and till date complainant has availed four loans.  In February 2007, complaint approached OP for grant of Hoe Equity Loan to the tune of Rs.8 lakhs and the same was granted by OP vide loan account No.11181179.

It is denied that on 19.06.2007 complainant was assured by OP to sanction loan of Rs.10 lakhs against the property mentioned.  It is submitted that on the said date complaint requested OP for an “Early Pay Off” thereby showing his intention to foreclose the loan account No.11181179 before the agreed date.  It is denied that an amount of Rs.1000/- was taken by OP from complainant.

It is submitted that legal notice dated was duly replied.  It is submitted that as per the request of complainant for an “Early Pay Off”, complainant submitted a cheque of Rs.8,36,825/- towards the foreclosure of the loan account No.11181179.  It is denied that Rs.41,840.25 was charged extra by OP. 

It is submitted that the final amount to be paid by complainant towards the foreclosure of the loan account was calculated after adding the interest and pre-payment penalty and the same was well intimated and received from complainant.

It is submitted that the foreclosure amount was submitted by complainant vide cheque No.121384 dated 20.07.2007 which was cleared on 30.07.2007.  It is further submitted that after the clearance of the said cheque, complainant was requested by OP to instruct his banker to give “Stop Payment” instructions as complainant’s instalments were being automatically deducted by ECS, but complainant paid no heed to it and therefore the instalment for the month of August was deducted.  When OP noticed the same a refund cheque No.875304 was sent to complainant through consignment no.549193545 but the same was returned back.  It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

We have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant and OP and carefully perused the records.

Complainant has failed to prove that OP has promised to pay Rs.10 lakhs to complainant.  Complainant has failed to prove that in lieu of foreclosing of loan against property No.K-18, Fateh Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, OP has charged Rs. 41,840.25 extra.  OP has charged the amount which was due against loan.  It is an admitted fact that the amount has been paid by complainant.

During the course of argument complainant also submitted that the property documents were returned to him.  So far as EMI of Rs.11,945/- is concerned OP has failed to prove that the same was refunded vide cheque No.875304 through consignment No.549193545 and the same was returned back. 

OP is directed to refund aforesaid amount within a period of one month alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint as well as Rs.3,000/- towards cost. 

Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof.  The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.

            Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

             (D.R. TAMTA)                                                         (A.S. YADAV)

                 MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT