PNB Housing Finance Limited V/S Brahm Parkash - Consumer Court Case

Haryana

Karnal

CC/541/2019

Brahm Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB Housing Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

08 Jul 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

Complaint No. 541 of 2019

Date of instt.21.08.2019

Date of Decision 08.07.2021

Brahm Parkash son of Shri Jai Chand & Sonia Parkash wife of Shri Brahm Parkash resident of House no.C-23, NDRI Campus.

…….Complainant.

Versus

1. PNB Housing Finance Ltd. SCO 218-219, 1^st floor, Sector-12, Part-!, City Centre HUDA, Karnal-132001.

2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, 401 & 402, 4^th floor, Interface 11, New Linking Road, Malad (West), Mumbai-400 064.

3. MAA Vaishno NET, TECH Pvt. Ltd. Signature Global City-1, Sector 28A, Karnal.

…..Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

Argued by: Complainant in person.

Shri Vineet Rathore counsel for OPs no.1 and 2.

Opposite party no.3 given up.

(Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:

The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as to OPs) on the averments that complainant had booked a 3 BHK flat no.MA-89, Ground floor, in Signature Global City-1,Sector 28 A, Karnal through Maa Vaishno Net Tech Pvt. Ltd., Karnal by giving booking amount of Rs.2,10,000/-vide receipt no.1146 dated 04.12.2018. The remaining amount of Rs.24,65,000/- plus GST will be deposited to the developer in six equal installment @ 12.5% of Unit cost, after a gap of four month period as prescribed by the developer. The complainant contacted Shri Pardeep Kumar Panchal, Relationship Manager of PNB Housing Finance Limited for the sanctioned of home loan. At the time of applying for home loan Shri Pardeep Kumar Panchal given an assurance that the processing fee of the loan is Rs.3568/- only and the rate of interest is also same as in the case of other National Banks i.e.@ 8.7%. Mr. Panchal had taken all original documents alongwith a cheque amounting to Rs.3568/-as processing fee of home loan from complainant. After taking all the documents and processing fee cheque Mr. Panchal was making intentional delay in processing the home loan. As a result of this intentional delay the complainant had also received a reminder dated 01.02.2019 from OP no.3 for deposit the 12.5% amount i.e. Rs.5,16,736/-. On 20.02.2019 Mr. Panchal requested to complainant to visit his office i.e. OP no.1 alongwith his wife as she is also co-applicant in this flat for signature on the relevant documents and fulfill other formalities. Mr. Panchal had also given an assurance to complainant that a copy of each signed documents will be provided free of cost but he did not provide till date. Cash amounting to Rs.2500/- as legal fee for the purchase of stamp duty etc. had also taken from the complainant and so many other blank documents got signed by the complainant.

2. Further, home loan sanctioned vide letter no.HOU/KAR/1218/618234 dated 20.02.2019 was received from PNB Housing Finance Ltd. i.e. OP no.1 through e-mail on 20.02.2019, depicting home loan amount of Rs.24,62,675/- (Rs.24,00,000/- home loan and Rs.62,675/- as insurance) @ 9.10% interest. The total disbursement amount of Rs.6,05,935/- had mentioned in this letter. After received the mail from PNB Housing Finance Ltd., the complainant written an e-mail dated 21.02.2019 to PNB customer care with intimating that please clarify that the demand of Rs.5,16,736/- has raised by Signature Global City but PNB housing Finance Ltd. had released an amount of Rs.5,35,000/- vide cheque no.270426 dated 20.02.2019 to Signature Global City and Rs.62675/- to ICICI Lombard GIS Ltd. and Rs.8260/- deducted as balance upfront fee without the knowledge of complainant. In response to this e-mail dated 21.02.2019 OP no.1 has informed to complainant that all payment has been made as per complainant advice. The complainant has surprised to see the amount of Rs.6,05,935/- in the disbursement request form, which was got signed blank at the time of taking other loan documents tacitly by Mr. Pardeep Panchal, Mr. Panchal never described the purpose this disbursement request form to complainant and an excess payment of Rs.18264/- had been released to Signature Global City and Rs.62675/- wrongly disbursed to ICICI Lombard i.e. OP no.2. The complainant never signed any documents to take the insurance of such huge premium amount. Moreover, Mr. Panchal never informed to complainant about this Insurance policy. Accordingly, the complainant written an e-mail dated 14.03.2019 to OP no.1 that no insurance is required, so please do not release any amount to OP no.2. But no reply was given by OP no.2 and three insurance policies forcibly got issued to complainant against this house loan.

3. Further, the complainant had received two policies from OP no.2 through courier as well as e-mail dated 12^th March 2019, vide no.4111/PNB/166730698/00/000 dated 9^th March 2019 for sum insured of Rs.1620000/-for the period from 09.03.2019 to 08.03.2022 and another policy no.4128i/HPP/166727571/00/000 dated 12.03.2019 for sum insured of Rs.3,00,000/- for the period from 09.03.2019 to 08.03.2021. The complainant had made an request to OP no.2 on the same day that these policies are not required and immediately be cancelled. Accordingly, after cancellation the said two policies by OP no.2 has refund the full premium of Rs.26505+Rs.8666=Total Rs.35171/- in OP no.1 account on 28.03.2019. As per disbursement advice the OP no.1 had released of Rs.62675/- on 20.02.2019 to OP no.2. Then, complainant wrote an e-mail dated 04.04.2019 to OP no.2 for refund of remaining amount of Rs.27504/- in loan account. But no reply was received from OP no.2. Thereafter, complainant discussed the matter with OP no.2 customer care, the customer care executive informed that one more policy vide no.4005/M/69504949/01/000 dated 11.03.2019 an amounting to Rs.27504/- has also been issued in name of complainant, which was never received by the complainant either through e-mail or registered post. Therefore, on request of the complainant the OP no.2 provided the insurance policy through email dated 09.04.2019. The complainant requested the OP no.2 for cancellation of the said policy and demanded Rs.27504/-. In response this email OP no.2 had informed vide email dated 18.04.2019 for share of NOC from finance company to process the request. The complainant has deposited whole amount of home loan alongwith interest thereon amounting to Rs.576064/- to OP no.1 on 06.05.2019 and obtained NOC on 14.05.2019 and shared with OP no.2 on 23.05.2019. The OP no.2 has credited an amount of Rs.25578/- in the bank account of complainant on 28.05.2019 out of total premium Rs.27504/- paid by the OP no.1. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Therefore, through this complaint complainant prayed for direction to OPs for refund of Rs.8260/- (balance upfront fee charged by OP no.1)+Rs.1926 (cancellation charges of OP no.2 or insurance policy) + Rs.590/- (Foreclosure fee charged by OP no.1) and also prayed for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs on account of mental tension, harassment etc.

4. Notice of this complaint was given to OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant and his wife approached the OP no.1 for obtaining home loan for purchase of flat in a township being developed by OP no.3. The concerned manager of OP no.1 explained the terms and conditions of loan amount. The complainant and his wife satisfied with the terms and conditions of the loan Agreement. On the instructions of the complainant the money was directed to be paid to the Builder i.e. OP no.3. The complainant in order to secure the loan amount has purchased insurance policies like group personal accidental policy, personal protect policy and health insurance policies from OP no.2 out of his own free will and consent. The complainant made request to get the money of this insurance policies to be clubbed in the financial facility so provided by OP and he consented to repay the same timely. It is further pleaded that complainant requested to OP no.1 for foreclosure of loan after some time. The request of complainant was accepted and loan was foreclosed as per his request. It is further pleaded that it is wrong and denied that at the time of applying for home loan Shri Pardeep Kumar Panchal given an assurance that the processing fee of the loan is Rs.3568/- only at the rate of interest is also same as in the case of other national banks

5. OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant in order to secure the loan amount has purchased insurance policies like Group Personal Accidental Policy, Personal Protect policy and health insurance policies from OP no.2 out of his own free will and consent after understanding the terms and conditions of the same. The complainant purchased Group Personal Accidental Policy no.4005/M/PNB-GPA/166726099/00/000 having basic premium of Rs.23308.79 and total tax payable Rs.4195.46 on policy as such total premium of Rs.27504/- was charges for this policy. Lateron, complainant asked for cancellation of policy as such same was cancelled on 10.04.2019 and refund of Rs.25578/- was credited in his account. In the same manner the complainant purchased Health Insurance Policy no.4128i/HPP/166727571/00/000 having basic premium of Rs.22461.86 and total tax payable Rs.4043.14 on policy as such total premium of Rs.26505/- was charges for this policy. Later on complainant asked for cancellation of this policy on 13.03.2019 as such same was cancelled on 13.03.2019 and refund of Rs.26505/- was credited in his account. Similarly, the complainant purchased Personal Protect Policy no.4111/PNB/166730698/00/000 having basic premium of Rs.7344/- and total tax payable Rs.1322/- on policy as such total premium of Rs.8666/- was charged for this policy. Lateron, complainant asked for cancellation of policy as such same was cancelled on 13.03.2019 and refund of Rs.8666/- was credited in his account. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6. OP no.3 in his written version pleaded that the names of the OP no.3 i.e. Maa Vaishno Net Tech Pvt. Ltd. in the present case being CC541/2019 needs to be deleted on the sole ground that no deficiency whatsoever has been alleged by the complainant against OP no.3 as they have no role to pay in adjudication of consumer dispute between the complainant and OP no.1 and 2.

7. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, customer copy booking receipt dated 04.12.2018 Ex.C1, reminder of demand dated 01.02.2019 from Signature Global Ex.C2, sanctioned letter of PNBHFL dated 20.02.2019 Ex.C3, email dated 21.02.2019 to PNBHFL Ex.C4, email dated 21.02.2019 from PNBHFL Ex.C5, Email to PNBHFL dated 14.03.2019 requesting no insurance policy required Ex.C6, email dated 12.03.2019 from ICICI Lombard for acceptance of health insurance policy Ex.C7, Personal Protect policy dated 09.03.2019 Ex.C8, ICICI Lombard Insurance policy dated 12.03.2019 Ex.C9, email dated 28.03.2019 from PNBHFL for payment received from ICICI Lombard Ex.C10, email dated 04.04.2019 to ICICI Lombard for refund of remaining amount of Rs.2750/- Ex.C11, Group Personal Accident Policy from ICICI Lombard Ex.C12, email dated 09.04.2019 to ICICI Lombard for cancellation of third insurance policy Ex.C13, email dated 18.04.2019 from ICICI Lombard for NOC Ex.C14, NOC from PNBHFL dated 14.05.2019 Ex.C15, copy of NOC sent to ICICI Lombard via email dated 23.05.2019 Ex.C16 and credit cancellation policy amount of Rs.25528/- in the deponent bank account from ICICI Lombard Ex.C17 and closed the evidence on 04.03.2020 by suffering separate statement.

8. On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Anil Chamola Ex.OP1/A, loan application Ex.OP1, letter regarding sanction of loan Ex.OP2, loan agreement Ex.OP3, disbursement request form Ex.OP4, statement of account Ex.OP5, application for closure of loan Ex.OP6 and no objection certificate Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence on 19.02.2021 by suffering separate statement.

9. OP no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Aditya Pandey Ex.OP2/A, cancellation letters dated 28.05.2019, 21.03.2019 and 21.03.2019 Ex.OP2/1, Ex.OP2/2 and Ex.OP2/3 and closed the evidence on 19.02.2021 by suffering separate statement.

10. OP no.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Mintu Kumar authorized signatory of OP no.3 Ex.R3/A and closed the evidence on 16.10.2020 by suffering separate statement.

11. On 09.04.2021, the complainants have given up OP no.3 being unnecessary, vide their joint statement.

12. We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

13. Complainant submitted that he had booked a 3 BHK flat No.MA-89, Ground Floor, in Signature Global City-1, Sector-28A, Karnal through Maa Vaishno Net Tech. Pvt. Ltd. Karnal by giving an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- vide receipt No.1146 dated 04.12.2018. The remaining amount of Rs.24,65,000/- plus GST will be deposited to the developer in six equal installments @ 12.6% of Unit cost, after a gap of four months. Therefore, complainant applied for home loan and Shri Pardeep Kumar Panchal, Bank Official of OP no.1 gave assurance that process fee of Rs.3568/- and rate of interest 8.7% per annum would be charged. After completion of all the formalities, loan was sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 20.02.2019 depicting home loan amount of Rs.24,00,000/- and Rs.62,675/- for insurance @ 9.10% interest per annum. He further submitted that he never signed any documents to take the insurance of such huge premium amount. He further submitted that he has received two insurance policies dated 09.03.2019 on 12.03.2019. Thereafter, on the same day he made request to ICICI Lombard (OP no.2) for cancellation of aforesaid policies, accordingly the said policies were cancelled and premium amount i.e. Rs.26,505/- and Rs.8666/- were refunded in his loan account. He further submitted that as per disbursement advice, PNB had released Rs.62,675/- to ICICI Lombard, so he written an e-mail dated 04.04.2019 to ICICI to refund remaining amount i.e. Rs.27,504/- but no reply was received, thereafter, he discussed the matter with ICICI Lombard, customer care, on their toll free number, the executive informed that one more insurance policy dated 11.03.2019 for an amount of Rs.27,504/- is standing in his name. He surprised to hear this as he never received the third policy neither through e-mail nor through courier. Thereafter, the executive provided him the insurance policy through e-mail dated 09.04.2019 and on the same day he requested for cancelling the same but after cancellation of the insurance policy the OP No.2 refunded an amount of Rs.25,578/- instead of Rs.27,504/-. He further submitted that Mr. Panchal never informed him about these insurance policies. He further submitted that he has deposited whole amount of home loan alongwith interest thereon amounting to Rs.5,76,064/- to PNB Housing Finance Ltd. i.e. OP no.1on 06.05.2019 and obtained NOC on 14.05.2019 and shared with ICICI Lombard on 23.05.2019. He further submitted that the OPs have charged excess amount in the shape of upfront charges, policy cancellation charges and foreclosure charges which are clearly deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, he prayed that OPs may kindly be directed to refund of Rs.8260/- balance upfront fee, Rs.1926/- insurance policy cancellation charges and Rs.590/- as foreclosure fee charged by PNBHFL, totaling Rs.10,776/- which was illegally deducted by OP. He further prayed for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

14. Per-contra, learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 argued that the concerned Manager of OP No.1 explained all the terms and conditions of loan amount to be availed and the amount of processing fees and other incidental charges and after satisfying with that conditions the complainant had ready to avail the financial facility for purchase of flat, since rate of interest as offered to them was competitive in market. He further argued that complainant in order to secure loan amount, had purchased insurance policies from Op No.2 of his own free will and consent. The loan was foreclosed as per the request of complainant. He further argued that the bank had not received Rs.2500/- as legal fee for the purpose of stamp duty etc. He further argued that amount of all the three policies were refunded to the complainant after cancelling the same on his request. The version of complainant that he has not received the third policy is not tenable as it is not possible that when all the three policies were sent to the complainant, then how can he has received the two policies out of three. Moreover, in order to prove this version, he has not led any evidence. As far as the cancellation charges are concerned, which is a mandatory requirement, hence, OP No.2 deducted the cancellation charges. He further argued that since the policies were purchased by the complainant by his own free will and cancelled the same by the OP No.2 on the request of the complainant, then there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

15. Admittedly, the complainant has taken home loan facility from the OP No.1 for purchasing of flat at Signature Global City. It is also admitted that the amount of three insurance policies were deducted from the loan amount by the OP No.1 which were paid to OP No.2.

16. The complainant has averred that Mr.Pradeep Kumar Panchal, Relationship Manager has assured that an amount of Rs.3568/- were charged as processing fee but the OP No.1 has charged Rs.8260/- as balance upfront fee. In this regard, we are of the considered view that all the allegations levelled by the complainant are against the said Mr. Pardeep Kumar Panchal but the complainant has not impleaded Mr. Pradeep Kumar Panchal as a party to the present complaint, which was the necessary party. If he impleaded as a party to the present complaint, then he can come and proves his plea, then the matter could have been different and can be bifurcated whether it is the complainant or Mr.Panchal, who is at fault. Now, without impleading him, the question with regard to charging excess amount of processing fees cannot be considered. Moreover, the entire version of the complainant is based upon oral version and no documentary evidence has been led by him in this regard. On the other hand, OPs have led cogent and convincing evidence in order to rebut the version of complainant.