Haryana

Karnal

CC/266/2016

Sunil Kumar Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB Housing Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sandeep Chauhan

01 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.266 of 2016

                                                         Date of instt. 07.09.2016

                                                         Date of decision:01.03.2018

 

Sunil Kumar Singla son of Jai Bhagwan Singla, resident of shop no.23 first floor Janta Anaj Mandi Karnal.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

PNB Housing Finance Limited, through its Manager, SCO no.218-219 1^st floor, Sector-12 Urban Estate Karnal.

                                                                     …..Opposite Party

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Shri Jagmal Singh……President. 

              Shri Anil Sharma……Member

 

 Present  Shri Sandeep Chauhan Advocate for complainant.

               Shri Somesh Garg Advocate for OP.

               

ORDER:                    

 

                         This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant had taken loan against property from OP for a period of 108 month with the EMI of Rs.12196/- against the loan amount of Rs.9,50,000/- at the rate of 16% under the loan account no.6710002494. The complainant was paying the installment of Rs.12196/- w.e.f.31.3.2007 to 22.1.2014. In the month of January, 2014 the complainant wanted to clear whole of the loan and complainant requested the OPs to take his entire loan then after checking the account the OP asked that Rs.12,00000/- is due against the complainant. Complainant demanded the account statement from the OP but OP said that if you deposited the amount then the OP should issue the account statement. Complainant deposited Rs.9,00,000/-lakhs to the account of OPs through rtgs and also issued a cheque of Rs.3,00,000/- to the OPs. Thereafter, the OPs issued computer generated account statement to the complainant. The complainant was surprised to see the account statement because as per account statement only Rs.9,93,270/- was due against the complainant on 22.1.2014 instead of Rs.12,00,000/-. The complainant asked the OP to return his cheque and take the amount of Rs.93270/-. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP so many times but the employee of the OP postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. On 18.5.2016 the complainant obtained the account statement of his account and the complainant surprised to see the account statement of his account as the OP not deposit the amount of complainant in his account and the amount is kept in sundry account upto 27.1.2015. OP deliberately and intentionally not transfer the amount of complainant in his account and calculate the interest of Rs.183290 from the period of 22.1.2014 to 30.1.2015 of amount of Rs.993270 instead of 93270 in the account of complainant. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction; locus standi; time barred; does not come under the definition of consumer and concealments of true and material facts. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant took loan against property for Rs.9,50,000/- with interest @ 16% under loan account no.6710002494 from OP and was paying regular installments to the OP. It is further submitted that in the month of January, 2014 the complainant wanted to clear whole of loan amount, so the complainant deposited Rs.9 lakhs in his loan account through RTGS and issued a cheque of Rs.3 lakhs to the OP and thereafter OP issued statement of account and Rs.9,93,270/- was due against the complainant on 22.1.2014 instead of Rs.12 lakhs. Whereas the true facts of the complaint are that the complainant took a loan against property for Rs.9,52,682/- from the OP and that loan amount of Rs.9,52,682/- was disbursed on 31.3.2017 to the complainant. The complainant opted the interest rate with “floating option” which was at the time of sanction @ 12% per annum with monthly rests and at present it is 15.60% per annum with monthly rests. The complainant did not pay the installments regularly after June, 2010 and as a result as per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, the OP transferred the loan account into NPA category account and thereafter the OP started proceedings under SARFAESI Act 2002 and took possession of the property mortgaged with OP under the Act Ibid. Thereafter, complainant came to the OP for negotiations and deposited Rs.9,00,000/- through RTGS and cheque for Rs.3,00,000/- in his loan account but when the said cheque was presented for encashment by OP, it was dishonored due to “insufficient funds”. As per policy guidelines of Reserve Bank of India after transfer of complainant’s loan account into NPA category account, the interest was calculated on the different sheet and was not calculated in the loan account of complainant, which was Rs.1,83,290.43 paise for the period January, 2014 to December, 2014. Hence there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 10.10.2011.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Anil Chamola Incharge Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 16.1.2018.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that complainant has taken loan of Rs.9,50,000/- against property from OP returnable in 108 monthly installment of Rs.12196/- vide loan account no.6710002494. He further argued that in January, 2014 complainant wanted to clear whole loan and requested the OP to take his entire loan, then after checking the account, the OP told that Rs.12 lakhs were due against the complainant. The complainant demanded the account statement but the OP said that the same would be issued if the complainant deposited the amount. Then the complainant deposited Rs.9 lakhs with the OP towards loan account through RTGS and also issued a cheque of Rs.3 lakhs to the OP regarding his loan. He further argued that thereafter, the OP issued the account statement of the complainant. He further argued that according to account statement only Rs.9,93,270/- were due against the complainant on 22.1.2014 instead of Rs.12 lakhs. He further argued that complainant asked the OP to return the cheque and take Rs.93270/- from the complainant.  He further argued that on 18.5.2016, the complainant obtained his account statement and surprised that the amount of Rs.9 lakh was not deducted from his loan account on 22.1.2014 when the same was deposited and kept the same in sundry account upto 27.1.2015 and only on 27.1.2015 the same was transferred into his loan account. In this way the OP has charged the interest of Rs.1,83,290/- from 22.1.2014 to 30.1.2015 on the amount of Rs.993270/- instead of Rs.93270/-.  In this way the OP has committed the act of unfair trade practice and deficient in the service, so liable to pay compensation.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP argued that the complainant took loan of Rs.9,52,682/- instead of Rs.9,50,000/- as alleged which was disbursed on 31.3.2007 and there was floating option regarding the rate of interest. He further argued that the complainant did not pay installments regularly after June, 2010 and due to this reason, as per guide lines of RBI, the OP transferred the loan account of complainant into NPA category account and started proceedings under SARFAESI Act 2002 and took possession of mortgaged property. Thereafter, the complainant came to OP for negotiation and deposited Rs.9 lakhs through RTGS and issued cheque for Rs.3 lakhs. The cheque was dishonoured due to “insufficient funds”. He further argued that as per RBI policy/guidelines, after transfer of complainant’s loan account into NPA category, the interest was calculated on different sheet and was not calculated in the loan account, which was Rs.183290/- from January, 2014 to December, 2014. He further argued that the complainant is now liable to pay the expenses for the NPA account proceedings. He further argued that complainant has admitted in Ex.OP-3 that Rs.12 lakhs are due against him.

8.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the dispute between the parties is with regard to the interest on the amount of Rs.9 lakhs for the period from 22.1.2014 to 27.1.2015. The contention of OP that complainant admitted in Ex.OP-3 that Rs.12 lakhs are due against him has no force because it is case of complainant that on his asking, the OP told him due amount of loan as Rs.12 lakhs. Moreover, at the time of depositing Rs.9 lakhs the complainant has written letter Ex.OP-3 and it is clear from Ex.OP-3 wherein the complainant has stated that according to F.C.L., he had to pay Rs.12 lakhs to PNBHFL and the complainant promised to pay the remaining Rs.3 lakhs upto 20.2.2014.  It is further clear from this letter Ex.OP-3 that the complainant has deposited Rs.9 lakhs into his loan account. The complainant has produced the statement of loan account issued by the OP as Ex.C-1. From this account statement, it is clear that on 31.12.2013 the loan amount due against the complainant was Rs.993270/- only. It is admitted by the OP that abovesaid Rs.9 lakhs were kept by the OP in sundry from 22.1.2014 to 27.1.2015 and this fact is also clear from account statement of the loan of complainant placed on the file by the OP as Ex.OP-2, wherein the said amount was added in the loan account on 27.1.2015 at page 6 of Ex.OP2. It is pertinent to mention here that it is contention of the OP that after the transfer of loan account into NPA category account, the OP calculated the interest on a different sheet, but that sheet has not been produced on the file by the OP. Therefore, the OP has concealed the material evidence and did not come forward with clean hands. The OP has also not explained that how the amount of interest from January, 2014 to December, 2014 comes to Rs.1,83,290.43. As stated above it is admitted case of the OP that the amount of Rs.9 lakhs was kept in sundry from 22.1.2014 to 27.1.2015 but the OP has not produce any such instruction or rules that the said amount cannot be deposited in the loan account of the complainant. Inspite of the deposit of the amount of Rs.9 lakh by the complainant, the complainant was burdened by the OP with the interest/penal interest on the said amount of Rs.9 lakh without any fault on his part. Whereas the said amount of Rs.9 lakhs should have been deducted from the loan account of the complainant but the OP has not do so. It is pertinent to mention here that inspite of the deposit of said amount by the complainant, the OP has charged interest on the said amount. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OP has committed an act of unfair trade practice and are deficient in providing services to the complainant.

9.             It is pertinent to mention here that from the loan agreement Ex.OP-1 placed on the file by the OP, it is clear that the loan amount was Rs.9,50,000/- only and not Rs.9,52,682/- as alleged by the OP in its written statement to the complainant. The complainant has not raised any objection in this regard so the matter is not discussed in detailed herewith.

10.           Thus, as a sequel to above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to deduct the amount of Rs.9 lakhs from the loan account of the complainant w.e.f.22.1.2014 ( the date of deposit of said amount) and thereafter calculate the interest on the remaining amount and the complainant is liable to pay the interest on the remaining amount as well as recovery charges also. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.11,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 01.03.2018

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                     (Anil Sharma)     

                        Member