Date of Filing 23.11.2023

                                                                                                       Date of Disposal: 29.02.2024

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),                                    …….PRESIDENT

               THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL,                                                                           ……MEMBER-I

               THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.Com., (ICWA), BL.,                                                             …….MEMBER-II

CC.No.121/2023

THIS THURSDAY, THE 29^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024

Mr.S.Rajesh, S/o.Late M.Subramani,

No.9, Dr.Varadharasanar Street,

Manavalanagar, PO.

Thiruvalllur 602 002.                                                                                ......Complainant.

                                                                        //Vs//

1.Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited,

   Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,

   Regional Head Office at Old No.24,

   New No.36, 3^rd Floor,

   Dr.Ambedkar Road,

   Ashok Nagar Main Road,

   Kodambakkam, Chennai 24.

2.Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited,

   Rep. by its Branch Manager,

   No.11, First Floor, IVR Square,

   Ramakrishna Street, Porur, Chennai 116,

   Thiruvallur District.                                                                         …..Opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant                               : M/s.S.Muthukumaravel, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties                         : M/s.M.Arunachalam, Advocate.

This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 26.02.2024 in the presence of M/s.S.Muthukumaravel, counsel for the complainant and M/s.M.Arunachalam, counsel for the opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.P.MURUGAN, MEMBER-II

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties with regard to extra amount collected from the complainant than the loan amount along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties 1 & 2 to repay a sum of Rs.29,799/- which was obtained by the opposite party from the complainant and to repay a sum of Rs.8791/- which was debited after the loan was duly closed and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the unfair trade practice in non-furnishing the loan agreement copy to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. It is a case of Home loan under mortgage of documents of Sale deed under equated monthly instalments with a finance company and dispute arised on the pre-closure charges and excess debit of amount in loan account and therefore charged service deficiency and unfair trade practice.

3.  The complainant in his version has stated that his mother has borrowed a sum of Rs.6,11,340/- from the Dewan Housing Finance Corporation (which has been amalgamated/ merged with the company whereas herein as opposite parties) by executing a registered mortgage deed dated 27.09.2012 in document No.4995/2012 and the loan was under the floating interest rate and as per the schedule of payment the borrower has to pay a sum of Rs.8791/- for 146 equated monthly instalments.  As such the borrower of the loan died on 24.06.2020, the legal heir of the borrower has to repay the loan amount and they did until 2022.  In 2022 the finance company which has sanctioned the loan has been amalgamated as Priamal Capital and Housing Finance Limited and it is alleged by the complainant that the new company has demanded more money when compared with the schedule of repayment as laid by the previous company.  The complainant has objected to his demand and requested for agreement copy which has not been complied with.  It is stated by the complainant that he was forced to pay the revised amount which is in excess when compared to the schedule of repayment as agreed earlier.  To avoid penal interest and other consequence the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.1,60,137/- which is excess of Rs.29,799/- instead of Rs.1,30,338/-.  The complainant states that the total repayment as per the schedule is Rs.12,77,936/- and the opposite party has failed to communicate and justify how the amount of Rs.1,60,137/- was arrived and it is mala fide intention of the opposite party not providing the agreement  copy though the original borrower died and her legal heir is requesting for the agreement copy.  It is alleged by the complainant that the decision of revision of repayment/interest was as unilateral in nature.  Since of these conditions the complainant had decided to pre-close the loan and accordingly paid the entire balance amount for a sum of Rs.1,59,929/- dated 08.07.2023 but the opposite party demanded Rs.1,60,137/- charging Rs.69/- per day extra for the delay in payment though the delay is not occurred because of the complainant.  It is alleged again by the complainant that even after payment made for closure of the loan, an amount of Rs.8791/- has been debited on 15.07.2023 towards EMI which is not justifiable.  After all these the original documents were received by the complainant on 20.11.2023.  It is charged by the complainant that the opposite party has raised the schedule of payment without any default or without any consent of the complainant and resulted in gross deficiency in service and committed unfair trade practice.

4. The complainant has put forth the prayer to direct the opposite party to repay a sum of Rs.29,799/- which has been obtained by opposite party without any justification and without disclosing the loan agreement or without schedule of payment and repay the sum of Rs.8791/- which was debited even after the loan was duly closed, and to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards unfair trade practice in non furnishing the loan agreement to the complainant and for altering the schedule of payment without notice to the complainant.

The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties.:-

5. On the other hand, the opposite party has stated that both the opposite parties are Branch Offices and one and the same.  It is defended that the loan amount of Rs.6,11,340/- was borrowed by the applicant who is none other than the mother of the complainant.  The loan was to be repaid in 12 years vide loan agreement dated 28.07.2012 at variable rate of interest which is 14% per annum and the floating rate of interest charges and is not fixed which has been accepted by the borrower as well as the co-borrower that is the complainant while signing the loan agreement.  As the loan applicant died, it is the duty of the co-applicant to settle the loan and it is not just on mercy factors that the complainant has paid and cleared the loan. The loan was availed with the absolute consent by the complainant who has tasted the fruit of the benefit of the loan since he is the co-applicant and legal heir of the applicant and the property.  The opposite parties deny that they have demanded more money when compared with the schedule of repayment.  As the agreed rate of interest is variable there will be change in the tenure as the interest rate various and as co-applicant the complainant is aware of such condition on the payment and his statement that the revision of rate of interest is unilateral is not acceptable.  There are communications in this regard to the complainant, says the opposite parties.

6. Also after due settlement of the loan, the original documents were returned back to the complainant on 19.09.2023 with proper NOC on the issue of loan settlement.  Regarding the amount of Rs.8791/- as deducted is as per revised foreclosure which has been communicated vide mail dated 18.07.2023.  It is also mentioned by the opposite parties that no additional payment made by the complainant amount to Rs.29,799/-.  The opposite parties have explained that the change in tenure and amount is because of the variable in the rate of interest due to the floating interest method which is agreed by the both the parties while signing the sanction letter and the revision of interest rate also informed to the borrower of the loan.

7. The opposite parties have stated that the EMI of the loan has to be made before 10^th of every month but the pre-closure of the loan was on 15.07.2023 and therefore the EMI was adjusted and rest was adjusted for the settlement and this is mentioned in the loan agreement page no.5 as per payment of Non housing loan which is pre payment charges as leviable at the discretion of the company.  The opposite parties have stated that there is no deficiency of service and prayed that the case of complaint be dismissed with cost.

8. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A10 were submitted. On the side of opposite parties proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B10 were submitted.

Points for consideration:-

1)    Whether there is any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant against the opposite parties has been successfully proved by the complainant with admissible evidence?

2) If so, to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1&2:-

9. The version of both parties heard and material fact also verified by this commission.

10. The version of the complainant and the defence of the opposite parties deeply scrutinized. The complainant who is a co-borrower of the loan does nave the duty to settle the loan once the borrower is dead.  It is the morale of the case that the loan was under float rate of interest and liable to change within the loan period which has been accepted by the borrower/applicant and co-applicant.  The claim to settle the loan was accepted by the co-applicant which is evident on record.  The complainant never protested for the final amount due and settled it.  Barely the late fee on day to day basis was brought up by the complainant and the amount paid in excess Rs.29,799/- said to have been paid was never proved by the complainant and his claim to refund such amount is not substantiated by material fact.  Whereas the foreclosure charges of Rs.7396/-and CERSAI charges of Rs.590/- has been charged in violation to the agreement entered upon between the parties.

11. In short, the balance amount for closing the loan at Rs.1,57,66/- as in the statement of account produced by the opposite party has been paid by the complainant without protest at Rs.1,60,137/- and not as Rs.1,59,929/-as claimed by complainant.  Therefore the amount of Rs.29,799/-not liable to be refunded as it is not proved to have been excess as payment or otherwise.  On the contrary, the pre-closure charges of Rs.7396/24 and the CERSAI charges of Rs.590/- are against of the loan agreement as evidently proved and it has to be refunded.  Therefore this commission orders to refund the pre-closure charges and CERSAI charges with due compensation and cost. Thus we answer the points accordingly in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite parties.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties 1&2 directing them jointly and severally

a) To refund an amount of Rs.7396/- (Rupees seven thousand three hundred ninety six only) debited towards foreclosure charges on 20.07.2023 along with Rs.590/- (Rupees five hundred ninety only) debited towards CERSAI charges on 20.07.2023 within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order to the complainant;

b) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant;

c) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant;

d) Amount in clause (a) if not paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, interest at the rate of 9% will be levied on the said amount from the date of complaint till realization.

Dictated by the Member-II to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the Member-II and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 29^th day of February 2024.

          -Sd-                                                  -Sd-                                                          -Sd-                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 MEMBER-II                                        MEMBER-I                                              PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-

       -Sd-                                                 -Sd-                                                           -Sd-                                                                                                        

MEMBER-II                                      MEMBER-I                                             PRESIDENT