Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/653/2022

Sh. Gaurav Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Praveen Kumar Bhatia

07 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/653/2022
Date of Institution	:	04/07/2022
Date of Decision	:	07/02/2024

 

Sh.Gaurav Verma S/o Sh.Prem Sagar Verma, R/o H-243 Shiv Colony, Ward No.7, Dharampur, Kalka-134102, Panchkula, Haryana.

Complainant

Versus

1). Branch Office Branch Manager (Accounts) M/S Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., SCO-811-812, 2nd Floor, Sector-22A, Chandigarh-160022.

2). Registered Office Product Head M/S Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., Warden House, 2nd Floor, SIR P.M. Road, Fort Mumbai-400001.

3). Branch Office Branch Manager M/S Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. A-301 & 302, 3rd Floor Elante Office Complex Industrial Area Phase-1 Chandigarh-160002.

4). Registered Office V.P. & Product Head (LAP) Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. (Formerly Known As Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.) Unit No.-601, 6th Floor, Amiti Building, Agastya Corporate Park, Kamani Junction, Opp. Fire Station, LBS Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070.

Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for OPs.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had applied for a loan from the OP No.1 amounting to Rs 2,96,37089/-. The loan was availed against Property (LPA Scheme). This loan was sanctioned by OP No.1 & 2 on the basis of repaying capacity of borrower on individual basis each (Annexure C-2). The complainant availed this loan from OP No.2 and taken over all Cash Credit Facility from Punjab National Bank, Branch Chandi Mandir, Pinjore, Haryana with amount of Rupees Two Crores Only, whereas OP No.2 was bound to deposit rest of sanctioned amount of Rupees Ninety Six Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand and Eighty Nine only in the complainant account but OP No.2 has given rest of the amount in three instalments to the complainant in three months after sending a legal notice through counsel but this amount must have been deposited in the account of complainant by OP No.1 & 2 in time (Annexure C-3). It is further stated that during Covid-19 or under the moratorium period OP No.4 extended the EMI’s by more than 14 fresh EMI's in the running of loan instead of charging only interest amount on outstanding loan amount from the deponent during the Covid-19, while the loan was regularly being paid by the individual loan applicant. The deponent annexed a calculation sheet as according to him interest must be charged by OP No.4 from the applicant on the outstanding amount during the Covid-19. The cause of action arose among the parties due to charging of foreclosing charges of 4% on the outstanding loan amount without mentioning the same in the letter of offer and acceptance generated on 31-Aug-2018. Non mentioning in the generated offer and acceptance letter, OP’s purely concealed the actual facts and mislead to deponent at the time of sanctioning the loan. The charges imposed by OP No.4 on the complainant is Rs.11,42,843/- plus GST amount of Rs.2,05,982 and these amounts are completely wrong. The relation among the parties are course of business only. Even the complainant had applied foreclosing application on dated 15.03.2022 with the cheque of Rs.1,180/- but OP No.4 failed to deliver foreclosure letter within the time limit and OP No.4 is charging one-month late payment charges from the complainant for their own defective services. The complainant was being harassed from the beginning from all OPs or such financial institution and from that act by OPs, the complainant is seeking direction against the OPs to pay all unjustified foreclosing amount of Rs.13,48,828/- with interest of 18% P.A. and also from OP No.3 & 4 to return amount for their defective services of providing foreclosure letter to complainant within time limit with interest of 18% P.A., complainant is also seeking interest on late disbursed amount of Rs.15,72,506 and over charges charged by OP No.3 & 4 from complainant during Covid-19 situation. The total amount is Rs.29,21,334/- with applicable interest of ROI 18%. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that the loan is availed for commercial purposes. Hence, the present forum under the CPA does not have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute. The loan was not a Housing loan but Loan against property-Commercial. The benefit of waiver of Foreclosure charges was not available to the complainant under the RBI/MSME guidelines. Reference is made to page 37 which deals only with home loans. The same is further supported from the fact that the repayment is being made from the current account of M/s Prem Auto Care. Hence, the benefit of waiver was not available with the complainant. The 20% financial assistance as alleged, has neither been specified as to what the same refers to, neither has the same been applied for nor has the complainant specified as to what the same refers to. In the present case the complainant availed the benefit of moratorium period. The complainant was given the benefit of ex gratia interest credit amounting to Rs.24,570/-. During the moratorium benefit availed by the complainant and the EMIs were deferred as per the RBI guidelines during the period of the moratorium. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OPs.
3.     Despite grant of sufficient time, no rejoinder was filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OPs, hence, opportunity to file rejoinder was closed vide order dated 20.04.2023.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The main grievance of the complainant is that the OP’s have illegally charged the foreclosure charges on the loan availed and also have not given the benefit of Moratorium period during Covid-19.
7.     On perusal of Annexure C-2, which a letter of offer, it is observed that OPs have sanctioned a Housing Loan, on 31.08.2018, on variable interest rate & number of EMI’s were 180 & tenure was 15 years. We reproduced here below para 6.4 of Annexure C-8, which is a Master Circular on Customer Service in Banks of RBI dated 1.7.2015.

         “6.4 Levy of Foreclosure Charges/Pre-payment Penalty on Floating Rate Term Loans

         Banks will not be permitted to charge foreclosure charges/pre-payment penalties on all floating rate term loans sanctioned to individual borrowers”.

        We reproduced here below para 3 of Annexure C-6, the letter of NHB dated 22.07.2016, which pertains to levy of foreclosure charges/prepayment penalties clarificate.

         “Further, the issue relating to applicability of the aforesaid circulars to a Sole Proprietorship Concern/Firm or an HUF, as a borrower/co-borrower has also been examined in the light of complaints/representations received by us. We clarify that the intent and spirit of the circular is to protect the interest of the individual borrowers. Therefore, a Sole Proprietorship Concern/Firm or an HUF, as borrower or co-borrower will not be treated as an individual borrower for the purpose of these circulars”.

8.     The case of foreclosure of the loan of the complainant is squarely covered by the above circular guidelines. In view of above discussion, the OPs cannot charges any foreclosure charges in contravention to the above Govt. guidelines.

9.       We have also gone through the statement of the account, wherein, it is observed that the OPs have granted the benefit of the moratorium period under Covid-19. Regarding the issue of 20% financial assistance, the complainant has not adduced any documentary evidence by way of any application made to the OPs.

10.      In view of above discussion, the foreclosure charges charged from the complainant by the OPs against the loan in question is held to be illegal & amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

8.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to refund an amount of ₹13,48,825/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment.
2. to pay an amount of ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

9.     This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
10.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
07/02/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member