Complaint filed on: 27-03-2023

                                                      Disposed on: 28-11-2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

DATED THIS 28^th THE DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LL.B.(Spl)., LADY MEMBER

Consumer Complaint No. 46/2023 

Smt. Nalina Kumari W/o G.Ramesha,

Opposite Prasanna Ganapathi,

Near MKS School, Sadashivanagar,

Tumkur – PIN – 572 105

Karnataka.

              ……….Complainant 

(In person)

V/s

PNB Housing Finance Limited,

3^rd Floor Prestige Embarald Building,

Municipal No. Old No.4 Madras Bank Road,

Bangalore PIN – 560 001

Karnataka.

……….Opposite Party/s

(M.G.C. & Co.,)

:O R D E R:

BY SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH –  LADY MEMBER

          This complaint is filed by the complainant against the Opposite Party [hereinafter called as OP] to direct the OP to take necessary steps to provide an appropriate resolution to the complainant at the earliest and cancellation of the extra charges and interest on the loan account of the complainant and further prayed to direct the OP to provide Rs.50,000-00 as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony.

2)      It is the case of the complainant that the complainant’s husband has availed the loan from the OP and husband of the complainant has passed away on 23^rd December 2021.  After submitting all particulars by the complainant, initially the bank claimed insurance amount of Rs.11,60,000-00 on 28^th February 2022 and again OIP has took an amount of Rs.1,57,000-00, Rs.4,00,000-00, Rs.1,16,000-00 from the complainant.  Further, the OP has given two different loan account statements which are showing different summation of credit and debit of the loan of complainant’s husband.  Further, the complainant submitted that the OP has charging huge amount for closure of the loan which is unethical and malafide and OP has miserably failed in providing right and proper service despite the complainant has paid the full loan amount to OP, thereby causing deficiency in service.  Hence, this complaint.

3)      After receiving the notice by this Commission, the OP has appeared through his counsel and filed version with 04 documents/annexure.  

4)      The OP has submitted that complainant and her husband had availed Housing loan covered with insurance and OP has admitted that, the husband of complainant who died on 23.12.2021.  Further, the OP has submitted that they have sanctioned the sum of Rs.26,00,000-00 and also paid Insurance premium amount of Rs.84,500-00.  Therefore, the total amount disbursed by the OP was Rs.26,84,500-00.  Further, the said amount was repayable in 360 monthly installment along with floating rate of interest and complainant’s husband opted for five months moratorium period.  The interest accrued during the said moratorium shall be added as principle amount to original principal amount which worked out to be Rs.1,07,321.71.  The complainant’s husband was regular only up-to June-2020 and thereafter he become a defaulter.  All the cheques which were presented came to be dishonoured by attracting bounced charges and also attracted interest on delay payment.  The OP has collected the outstanding loan amount as calculated as per the agreement of loan and also OP has waived off Rs.61,170-00 for some charges and fees and OP has not charged foreclosure charges for closure of the loan.  The OP has only collected the outstanding amount from the complainant who has the co-applicant for the loan as per the agreement of loan and OP has denying the complaint of the complainant and prayed for rejection/dismissal of the complaint.    

5)      The complainant has filed her affidavit evidence with 05 documents which are marked as Ex.C1 to Ex.C5. One Smt.Shree Vani .K – In charge Legal Collection of OP has field her affidavit evidence on behalf of OP.

6)      We heard the argument of complainant in person and counsel for the OP and peruse the written arguments of the OP and the points that would arise for determination are as under:-

1. Whether complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPs?

2. Is complainant entitled to the relief sought for?

7.       Our findings on the aforesaid points are as under:

Point No.1: In Negative

Point No.2:As per the final order

                   for the following;

:REASONS:

Point Nos.(1) & (2):-

8)      The complainant has argued that, the OP has charged extra foreclosure charges after the death of the loanee who has the husband of the complainant. The complainant has further argued that, the OP has initially claimed insurance amount of Rs.11,60,000-00 but the complainant has failed to prove that when she has informed the death of her husband to OP and to the insurance company. The complainant has produced the Ex.C5/ copy of the letter wrote to the OP, but the Ex.C5 has not reflecting the particular date when the complainant has wrote letter to the OP regarding the death of her husband. Further the complainant has argued that, the OP has collected an amount of Rs.1,57,000-00, Rs.4,00,000-00 and Rs.1,16,000-00. The OP has also admitted that they have collected an amount of Rs.1,57,000-00 on 16^th March 2022, Rs.4,00,000-00 on 19^th April 2022 and Rs.1,16,000-00 on 13^th May, 2022 from the complainant Ex.C3/ copy of the statement of Account produced by the complainant and annexure-D/list of collected amount from the complainant and her deceased husband establishing the same. Further the complainant has argued that, the OP has issued loan account statement by summation of  both the credit and debit as Rs.49,80,575-00 in which principle amount is Rs.26,84,800-00 and interest and other charges come out to be Rs.22,96,075-00 and in another statement the Principal amount is shown to be Rs.26,98,998-00 and interest are shown to be Rs.8,03,637-00 therefore the total installment is Rs.35,02,636-00. To establish the same the complainant has produced Ex.C2/copy of Loan Amortization Schedule and Ex.C3/copy of the statement of Account. On perusing the Ex.C2 and Ex.C3, the Ex.C2 has only explaining details about Instrument date, Rate type, Rate of Interest, Installment, Interest, Principal, Principal outstanding, Transaction Date. But Ex.C3 is the statement in detail with loan disbursement details, Rate of interest History, Part Prepayment Details, Charge Due Details, Processing and Login Fees, Loan transaction details. The Ex.C2 has not included the details of all other charges. The complainant has argued that, OP has intentionally bounced the cheques already given to the OP for encashment. But the complainant has not produced any document to show that, she or her deceased husband have the sufficient balance in their account to honour the cheques. Hence the complainant is liable to pay the charges for the bouncing ECA or cheques, as per the conditions of the loan agreement.

9)     In contrary the OP has submitted that, the husband of complainant has availed the loan a sum of Rs.26,00,000-00 and also paid Insurance Premium of Rs.84,500-00. Therefore OP has disbursed the total amount of Rs.26,84,500-00. Further, complainant also co-applicant for the loan. To establish the same the OP has produced annexure-A/copy of the loan sanction letter and annexure-B /copy of the loan agreement. Annexure-B produced by the OP proves that the complainant is the co-applicant for the said loan. But the complainant has not disclosed about that, she is the co-applicant for the said loan and she has not produced the loan agreement copy. Further the OP has argued that, complainant’s husband opted for five months moratorium period. Ex.C2 produced by the complainant establishes that the husband of the complainant has opted moratorium on March, April, May, July and August, 2020.  But the complainant not pleaded or not submitted in her arguments that the moratorium opted by her husband. When the husband of the complainant opted 5 months moratorium then interest accrued during the said moratorium shall be added  as Principle Amount to the Original Principle amount. Further the OP has submitted that, the interest regarding moratorium period was worked out to be Rs.1,07,321,71-00. Further the OP has submitted that, the complainant’s husband was regular only up to June, 2020, and, thereafter complainant’s husband became a defaulter and all the cheques which were presented came to be dishonored by attracting bounced charges and also attracted interest on delay payment Ex.C3 produced by the complainant has establishing that the complainant’s husband became a defaulter from July, 2020. The para Second of point No.5 of Annexuur-A/ terms and condition of loan sanction explains as “In case of delayed payment, overdue interest for the delayed period will be charged at rates as determined by INBHFL from time to time”. The complainant and her deceased husband were accepted and signed to the agreement. When the complainant has agreed to the terms and conditions of the loan then she should bound with the terms and conditions. When the complainant’s husband has defaulter then he should pay the interest and overdue interest on the payment as determined by the OP from time to time. Further OP has argued that, they have not charged the Foreclosure charge as Rs.9,520-00, and Rs.91,520-00 is the only “Foreclosure Amount”  shall mean amount Principal amount Sr No.51 of Ex.C2 produced by the complainant has showing that, the Principal as Rs.91,520.75-00. Further the OP has submitted that, the total charges was calculated as Rs.67,476-00, but considering the situation of the complainant had waived off all the charges levied against the loan until April, 2022 which comes up to Rs.61,170-00. Charge due details in the Ex.C3 produced by the complainant proves the same. Hence we have not found any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Further point No.8 of Annexure-A/ copy of loan sanction letter produced by the OP explains about insurance as follows –

“Insurance: It will be your responsibility to ensure that the property offered as security is duly and properly insured against fire and other hazarded for an amount specified by PNBHF during the period of this loan with PNBHFL as sole beneficiary.  The evidence thereof shall be given to PNBHFL every year and/or whenever asked for by PNBHFL.  Regardless of the amount being specified by PNBHFLI or the said purpose, you shall remain absolutely obligated to insure the property for an adequate amount.  This document is not a contract of insurance.  The terms and conditions including claims and coverage will be governed by the issue of such insurance policy.  Please note that the role of PNBHFL under the insurance policy would be that of a facilitate and the decision to cover and settle any future claim under the policy would solely rest with the insurance company.  Insurance is the subject matter of solicitation.        

According to the above point, to cover or settle any future claim under the policy would solely rest with insurance company. Though after calling the case for clarification the complainant has failed produce the copy of insurance policy and to explain the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Further the complainant has also not made the Insurance Company for the necessary party to the complainant. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non joinder of the parties and also complainant failed to establish the deficiency of service on the part of OP. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following;

:ORDER:

          Complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed without cost.  

Furnish copy of this order to both parties at free of cost.