Delhi

New Delhi

CC/263/2017

Sushma Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

12 Sep 2017

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

 NEW DELHI-110001

 

 

Case No.C.C./263/2017                                                 Dated:

 

In the matter of:

 

SMT. SUSHMA SHARMA,

W/o Sh. J.M. Sharma,

R/o F-122, Vikas Puri,

New Delhi-110018

            ……..COMPLAINANT

 

 

VERSUS

 

 

PUNJAB NATINAL BANK,

ECE House, Located At:

28-A, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110001.

 

       .... OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEMBER: H M VYAS

ORDER

                        The gist of the complaint and the arguments addressed by the counsel for complainant is that the complainant is co-owner of property No. F-122, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. The complainant with other joint owner entered into a lease agreement with PNB Housing its office at Bhikaji Cama Place in r/o the  said premises No. F-122, Vikas Puri, New Delhi on 21/04/2005 for a period of five years on a monthly rent of Rs. 92234/-  to be apportioned equally with joint owner.  He took a term loan for Rs. 29,84,000/- sanctioned @ 8% p.a. interest in November 2005 against future lease rent whereas the OP demanded interest @ 10.75% p.a.  The OP increased the rate of interest to 13.5% p.a.  Complainant states that 112 installments have been paid and the OP charged excessive interest @13.5% instead of 8%. The said interest rate beyond 8%(accepted at the time of seeking Loan) is not acceptable to complainant. The complainant argued that the complaint has been filed within limitation period even though the installments were paid to OP at enhanced rate of interest and the account was closed in 2012 and further that the claim of refund id being prayed from November, 2013.

            The following prayer has been made:

1. To direct the OP to pay an amount of Rs. 6,83,000/- alongwith interest @8% per annum w.e.f. November, 2013 till its realization to the complainant which is occurred due to excessive rate o interest.
2. To award costs of the present complaint in favour of the complainant and against the OP.
3. Any other order(s)/relief(s) as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case may also be awarded in favour of the complainant and against the OP. 

The OP has also  filed a civil suit No. 120/2015 for recovery of Rs. 9,75,727.23P which is pending before ADJ at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as per the documents filed on 10/8/17 by the complainant. In the recovery suit it is  alleged by the bank that the term loan was sanctioned on 13/11/05 against future lease rental of Rs.29,84,000/- availed by the complainant.  The complainant was to pay 112 equated installments of Rs. 42,082/- each through lease rent and the bank at any time shall be entitled for changing the interest rate and the current rate of interest is 13.5% p.a. with monthly rest.  The complainant closed the account from where the installments were being paid resulting in default and irregular loan account.  The complainant signed the balance and security confirmation letters on 27/06/2008, 31/03/2011 and lastly on 31/7/12. The payable balance was conveyed to the complainant and for default  in payment by complainant, the account was declared non-performing asset on 30/6/15.  The prayer made by the bank is the said suit is for decree of Rs. 9,75,727.23P with interest beside pendentalite interest and cost of the suit.

From the foregoing facts submitted by the complainant it is clear the complainant made the payments as per the loan agreement to some extent and then he closed the account from where the installments were paid.  The bone of contention in the suit for recovery pending before Ld. ADJ and the contents in this complaint revolve around the issue of interest rates chargeable by the Bank for the loan. It is settled proposition of law that the same issues cannot be adjudicated at two different Court/Forum. As regard the limitation, it is evident that the loan agreement binding the parties relates to the year 2005 and the cause of action arose prior to 2012 when the complainant chose to close his account. The prayer in the complaint is for refund of amount of interest paid to the bank with interest since November 2013 which indicates the cause of action arose lastly in November 2013. This complaint has been filed on 7/6/17 i.e. after 3 years and 6 months. Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act the Complainant can be filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. No explanation for filing the complaint was pleaded or argued,  In the light of above facts and the  Legal Position. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the complaint is barred by limitation and is therefore, dismissed accordingly.

Copy of order be sent to complainant by post free of cost. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ).

File be consigned to the record room.

   Pronounced in open Forum on                                                     .

 

 

(S K SARVARIA)

PRESIDENT

 

                                  (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                          (H M VYAS)

                                           MEMBER                                                                      MEMBER