BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 81/2004 Filed on 16.02.2004<br /> Dated : 15.07.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> Vijayan Pillai, S/o Gopalakurup, Vijaya Nivas, Kalpakassery Lane, Thiruvallom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 027.<br /> (By adv. P. Krishnankutty Nair)<br /> Opposite party:<br /> M/s Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., White House, 2nd Floor, Opp: Parthas Power House Road, Thiruvananthapuram 695 023 represented by its Branch Manager. <br /> (By adv. B. Ashok Kumar)<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 30.01.2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 04.06.2008, the Forum on 15.07.2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT<br /> The case of the complainant is that the complainant availed a housing loan of Rs. 600000/- from the opposite party. The said loan was sanctioned by the opposite party at an interest rate of 11% from 05.09.2000 till 31.05.2003, at 10% interest from 01.06.2003 till 30.09.2003 and 9.5% from 01.10.2003. The said loan amount was disbursed to the complainant in two instalments i.e; Rs. 400000/- on 16.11.2002 and Rs. 200000/- on 29.11.2002. The said loan is repayable at the above interest rate spread over a period of 17 years at an equated monthly instalment of Rs. 6624/- per month. The opposite party is not at all maintaining true and correct accounts of the loan and hence charges excess amount from the complainant. The excess amount so collected was not appropriated towards the principal amount or towards the interest. The action of the opposite party is contrary to the terms agreed and thus there is unfair trade practice. Many a time complainant demanded the opposite party to give detailed statement of accounts. But opposite party has not furnished the said statement of accounts. Finally the complainant decided to settle the net outstanding amount by arranging finance from Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation and paid an amount of Rs. 616548/- as claimed and demanded by the opposite party. In fact complainant does not owe an amount of Rs. 616548/-. The opposite party demanded Rs. 29040/- more from the complainant towards take over charge. Opposite party also collected Rs. 10410/- in excess to the eligible contract rate of interest. Complainant is entitled to get Rs. 39450/- from the opposite party. Hence this complaint claiming Rs. 39450/- towards closing charge and excess interest collected from the complainant. <br /> Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is true that complainant and his wife Sobhana Kumari approached the opposite party for availing a house loan of Rs. 600000/- and accordingly the opposite party had sanctioned and disbursed the said amount on certain terms and conditions vide a Loan Agreement agreed and executed by the complainant and his wife in favour of opposite party. The period of repayment was for 7 years. The opposite party is a public limited company and its accounts are subject to compulsory audit as stipulated under the law. Under the terms of the said loan agreement opposite party is entitled to prepayment charges. On 29.01.2004, complainant declared that they have no other claims against the opposite party. Complainant has suppressed all these facts and filed this complaint falsely and without any bonafides. The opposite party does not commit any unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant. In fact, it is the complainant who had committed breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement agreed by him in the loan agreement. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is no way bound to pay any amount or compensation to the complainant. No excess amount has been charged by the opposite party while settling the accounts with the complainant. Because of the premature closing opposite party has suffered pecuniary loss. It is on the request of the complainant that the loan amount was closed prematurely. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs to the opposite party. <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:-<br /> (i)Whether there has been deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?<br /> (ii)Reliefs and costs.<br /> To support the contention in the complaint, the complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 in lieu of examination in chief and marked two documents as Exts. P1 and P2. On behalf of opposite party, S. Rajeev, Manager, PHFC has filed a counter affidavit as DW1 and marked two documents as Exts. D1 and D2. <br /> Points (i) & (ii):- Admittedly, the complainant availed a housing loan from the opposite party for an amount of Rs. 600000/-. It has been mentioned in the complaint that the said loan was sanctioned at an interest of 11% from 05.09.2000 till 31.05.2003, at 10% interest from 01.06.2003 till 30.09.2003 and 9.5% from 01.10.2003. Ext. P2 is the copy of certificate showing the details of the loan, issued by the opposite party wherein it is mentioned that the loan sanctioned amount is Rs. 600000/- and date is 05.09.2002, whereas Ext. D1 is the copy of the loan documentation (housing loan) wherein the loan agreement is seen executed on 16.11.2002. In his cross-examination, PW1 deposed that the loan was taken in the year 2002. Hence the pleading in the complaint as well as in the affidavit that the said loan was sanctioned by the respondent at an interest rate of 11% from 05.09.2000 till 31.05.2003, at 10% interest from 01.06.2003 till 30.09.2003 and 9.5% from 01.10.2003 is against the contents in Exts. D1 and P2 as well as deposition of PW1. Ext. D1 loan documentation is seen signed by the complainant and his wife, the co-applicant. Ext. D1 is seen admitted by the complainant in his cross examination. PW1 further admitted that he had remitted the equated monthly instalment of Rs. 6624/- for 10 months. A perusal of Ext. D1 loan documentation would disclose that the loan amount is Rs. 600000/-, the date of agreement is 16.11.2002, interest is 11% per annum, term of repayment is 17 years, equated monthly instalment is Rs. 6624/-, number of EMI 204, date of commencement of EMI -01.12.2002, due date of payment of EMI 10.12.2002. The grievance of the complainant is that the respondent charged excess amount contrary to the terms of agreement and that the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 616548/- on 31.01.2003. No material on record to show that complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 616548/- to the opposite party. Ext. P1 is the receipt dated 23.01.2004 issued by the opposite party which would show that opposite party has received an amount of Rs. 600000/- by way of cheque/DD No. 00462 dated 23.01.2004 drawn on Hong Kong and Shanghai bank. The said Rs. 600000/- as per Ext. P1 would imply EMI amount Rs. 6624/-, penal charge Rs. 234/-, Housing loan (prepayment) Rs. 578890/-, and pre-payment charges Rs. 14252/-. Ext. D2 is the copy of the document acknowledging the receipt dated 29.10.2004 of documents from the opposite party by the complainant. In his cross examination complainant admitted Ext. D2. A perusal of Ext. D2 would reveal the fact that complainant has declared that he has no other claims against the company. As per clause 2.8 of the Ext. D1 loan agreement, “DHFL may, in its sole discretion and on such terms as to prepayment charges etc., as it may prescribe, permit acceleration of equated monthly instalments of prepayment at the request of the borrower”. Ext. D1 loan agreement is seen signed by the complainant and his wife, the co-applicant. Hence the demand of prepayment charges by the opposite party is in observance of the terms of the contract. Though as per Ext. P2 loan details issued by opposite party the total outstanding as on 09.12.2003 was to the tune of Rs. 616548/-, complainant is seen remitted Rs. 600000/- including prepayment charges as per Ext. P2 dated 23.01.2004. Complainant himself declared as per Ext. D2 that he has no other claims against the company. Neither statement of account, nor any other records filed by the complainant to show that opposite party has acted contrary to the terms of agreement. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that complainant has not succeeded to establish unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Complaint has no merit at all which deserves to be dismissed. <br /> In the result, complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 15th July 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 81/2004<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> <br /> PW1 – Vijayan Pillai<br /> <br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - Photocopy of receipt No. 4 dated 23.01.2004 with loan code 0001404 and File No. 0006689. <br /> <br /> P2 - Photocopy of certificate dated 09.12.2003 issued by the opposite party. <br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :<br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> D1 - Photocopy of loan documentation of Housing loan for the complainant. <br /> <br /> D2 - Photocopy of letter dated 29.01.2004 addressed to the opposite party for releasing of the original property documents. <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br />