Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/302/2013

Dr.R.Amutha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pnb Housing Finance Ltd ., - Opp.Party(s)

R.amutha

06 Aug 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 11.09.2013

                                                                          Date of Order : 06.08.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.302 /2013

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 06^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018

                                 

Dr. R. Amutha,

P3, Lotus Colony,

Nandanam,

Chennai – 600 035.                                             .. Complainant.                                                        

 

    ..Versus..

 

1. The Manager,

Pnb Housing Finance Ltd.,

3^rd Floor, Sudarsan Building,

No.14, Whites Rod,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.

 

2.  The Area – Sales Manager,

Pnb Housing Finance Ltd.,

3^rd Floor, Sudarsan Building,

No.14, Whites Road,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.                                         ..  Opposite parties.

          

For complainant                     :  Party in person

Counsel for opposite parties :  M/s. Mothilal & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.53,731/- being withheld towards the Compulsory Insurance Coverage and the excess EMI charged, to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and untold hardship to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant submits that she availed housing loan from the opposite party, PNB Housing Finance ltd. for a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- against the property during the year September 2012.   But the opposite parties sanctioned the loan for Rs.24,50,432/- including insurance premium of Rs.2,50,432/-.  The complainant objected for compulsory insurance coverage premium of Rs.2,50.432/-, since the complainant was in a critical position to settle the deed of registering the house property on 22.10.2012 and she was compelled to avail the loan.  The complainant repeatedly requested the opposite parties to remove the insurance coverage which is added to loan amount.   Since the opposite parties refused to consider the request of the complainant, the complainant issued letters to RBI Ombudsman, Insurance Ombudsman and Corporate Office of the opposite parties.   After due enquiry, the Ombudsman issued letter dated:14.11.2012 stating that “Since the complaint pertains to Housing Finance Limited, the same does not come under the purview of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006”.  Hence the complainant was constrained to file this case.  Meanwhile, the ICICI Lombard Insurance Company issued a letter dated: 15.02.2013 and in the loan account no. 6700002808 statement Rs.8,133/- and Rs.1,88,588/- has been refunded and credited into the loan account on 12.2.2013 and 28.02.2013 respectively.   Further the complainant submits that from 17.11.2012, the opposite parties collected EMI at the rate of Rs.41,873/- includes the interest for Rs.24,09,135/- and the revised EMI of Rs.37,280/- was collected from 10.08.2013 after adjusting the  insurance amount there by a difference of Rs.3,593/- for 9 months amounting to Rs.32,373/- is collected by the opposite parties without any reason.  Since the opposite parties has not paid the amount even after repeated requests and demands, the complainant issued notice dated:13.08.2013 for which, the opposite parties has not sent any reply.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2.     The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The complaint is filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed.  The opposite parties state that the complainant availed housing loan and the opposite parties never compelled the complainant to avail the insurance policy.   The complainant had been informed of the option to avail of an insurance and it is submitted that the customer had voluntarily availed the same, and in event of the customer having felt that the Bank has forced something against her wishes, she could have rejected the loan offer made by bank.  The sanction letter issued by the opposite parties reads as follows: “or you do not wish to avail the insurance premium funding, the loan amount would be reduced by the extent of GTLI”.  Further the opposite parties state that the complainant has not chosen not to file the pages two and three of the said sanction letter before this Forum with ulterior motives, in order to mislead this Forum.    Further the Ombudsman returned with a finding that the matter is not within their purview.   Further the opposite parties state that they have agreed to cancel the insurance which is the prerogative of the insured at any time.   Further the opposite parties state that letter dated: 23.08.2013 of the Insurance Company refunding the amount on pro-rata basis, has nothing to do with the opposite parties.  Further the opposite parties state that the EMI of Rs.41,873/- related to the principle amount is inclusive of insurance amount, whereas the revised EMI amount of Rs.37,280/- is pursuant to the refund of insurance premium.  The complainant cannot claim any amount allegedly collected in excess EMI.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.   Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties is filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 are filed and marked on the side of the opposite parties. 

4.     The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled a sum of Rs. 53,731/- being the balance amount collected by the opposite party towards compulsory insurance coverage and the excess EMI  collected as prayed for?   
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation mental agony and deficiency in service with cost as prayed for?

5.     On point:-

The complainant filed her respective written arguments.  The opposite parties has not filed written arguments and not turned up to advance any oral arguments also.  Heard the complainant.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits documents etc.   Admittedly, the complainant availed  housing loan  from the opposite party, PNB Housing Finance ltd. for a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- against the property during the year September 2012.   But the opposite parties sanctioned the loan for Rs.24,50,432/- including insurance premium of Rs.2,50,432/- as per Ex.A1.  The complainant objected and expressed her unwillingness for compulsory insurance coverage premium of Rs.2,50.432/-, since the complainant was in a critical position to settle the deed of registering the house property on 22.10.2012 and she was compelled to avail the loan.  The complainant repeatedly requested the opposite party to remove the insurance coverage which is added to loan amount.   Since the opposite parties refused to consider the request of the complainant, the complainant was constrained to issue letters to RBI Ombudsman, Insurance Ombudsman and Corporate Office of the opposite party as per Ex.A3.   

6.     After due enquiry, the Ombudsman issued Ex.A6, letter dated:14.11.2012 stating that “Since the complaint pertains to Housing Finance Limited, the same does not come under the purview of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006”.  Hence the complainant was constrained to file this case.  Meanwhile, the ICICI Lombard Insurance Company issued a letter dated: 15.02.2013 citing the loan account no. 6700002808 stating that Rs.8,133/- and Rs.1,88,588/- has been refunded and credited into the loan account on 12.2.2013 and 28.02.2013 respectively as per Ex.A8 & Ex.A9.   But the opposite parties and the ICICI Lombard Insurance Company failed and neglected to pay the balance amount of Rs. 53,731/- collected towards the insurance policy.  

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that from 17.11.2012 the opposite party collected EMI at the rate of Rs.41,873/- includes the interest for Rs.24,09,135/- the revised EMI Rs.37,280/- was collected from 10.08.2013 as per Ex.A14 after adjusting the  insurance amount there by a difference of Rs.3,593/- for 9 months amounting to Rs.32,373/- is collected by the opposite parties without any reason which amounts to unfair trade practice.  Since the opposite parties has not paid the amount even after repeated  requests and demands, the complainant was constrained to issue notice as per Ex.A13 for which, the opposite parties has not sent any reply also.  Hence the complainant is constrained to file this case claiming the refund of Rs.53,731/- paid towards the compulsory insurance  and a sum of Rs.32,337/- paid towards excess EMI  with a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

8.     The contention of the opposite parties is that admittedly, the complainant availed housing loan; the opposite parties never compelled the complainant to avail the insurance policy.   The sanction letter vide Ex.B1 issued by the opposite parties reads as follows:     “.... you do not wish to avail the insurance premium funding, the loan amount would be reduced by the extent of GTLI”.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant has not produced the entire sanction letter.    But on a careful perusal of the records, both Ex.B1 and Ex.A1 are one and the same.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the letter addressed to the Ombudsman returned with a finding that the matter is not within their purview.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that they have agreed to cancel the insurance which is the prerogative of the insured at any time.   This opposite party have no role in cancellation of the insurance policy.    But before issuing policy neither the opposite party nor the Insurance Company never heard the complainant. 

9.     Further the contention of the opposite parties is that letter dated: 23.08.2013 of the Insurance Company refunding the amount on pro-rata basis, has nothing to do with the opposite parties.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the EMI of Rs.41,873/- related to the principle amount is inclusive of insurance amount, whereas the revised EMI amount of Rs.37,280/- is pursuant to the refund of insurance premium.  The complainant cannot claim any amount allegedly collected in excess EMI.   But it is very clear that the opposite party while sanctioning the loan a sum of Rs.2,50,432/ additionally sanctioned and accounted  towards the insurance coverage without the knowledge of the complainant. After several representations and request a sum of Rs.1,96,721/- alone refunded and credited into the loan account of the complainant.  The opposite parties and Insurance Company ICICI Lombard still has not refunded a sum of Rs.53,731/- and is lying with opposite party and ICICI Lombard,  the opposite party also collected excess amount of Rs.32,337/- towards EMI under the pretext of the loan amount of Rs.24,09,135/-. The opposite parties also has not raised any substantial contention regarding the sanction amount and EMI collected etc.  The opposite parties has not raised any serious contention regarding the compensation amount also.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of considered view that the opposite parties shall refund a sum of Rs.53,731/- withheld towards the insurance amount and a sum of Rs.32,337/- paid towards excess EMI with a compensation of Rs.30,000/- with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

  In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.53,731/- (Rupees Fifty three thousand seven hundred and thirty one only) withheld towards the Compulsory Insurance Coverage and a sum of Rs.32,337/- (Rupees Thirty two thousand three hundred and thirty seven only) paid towards excess EMI and to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

 Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 06^th day of August 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	03.10.2012	Copy of sanction order for Loan amojnt of Rs.22,00,000/-, PNB Housing Finance Limited, Chennai – 600 014.
Ex.A2	17.10.2012	Copy of the cheques issued for Rs.21,58,703/-
Ex.A3	19.10.2012	Copy of the complaint sent to Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai – 18. Bank Ombudsman, RBI, Chennai – 1. The Branch Manager, PNB Housing Finance     Limited, Whites Road, Chennai -14. Corporate Office, PNB Housing Finance Limited, Delhi.
Ex.A4	25.10.2012	Copy of reply from office of the insurance Ombudsman, Chennai – 600 018.
Ex.A5	31.10.2012	Copy of reply from office of the Banking Ombudsman, Chennai – 1.
Ex.A6	14.11.2012	Copy of communication from offices of the Banking Ombudsman
Ex.A7		Copy of ICICI Lombard Insurance Policy
Ex.A8		Copy of ICICI Lombard Insurance Policy – Cancellation letter
Ex.A9	15.06.2013	Copy of statement of account No.6700002808
Ex.A10	16.06.2013	Copy of E-mail from PNB Housing Finance Ltd.  Request to confirm the revised EMI of Rs.37,280/- to be incorporated in system.
Ex.A11	08.07.2013	Copy of E-mail accepting the Revised EMI
Ex.A12		Copy of E-mail from Officer – Operation & Customer Service – to give EMI change effect on next month i.e. August, 2013.
Ex.A13	13.08.2013	Copy of letter to the opposite parties The Area Sales Manager, PNB, Chennai-14. The Manager, PNB, Chennai – 14.
Ex.A14	17.08.2013	Copy of acknowledgement from The Area Sales Manager, PNB, Chennai – 14 The Manager, PNB, Chennai – 14.

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B1	03.10.2012	Copy of sanction letter
Ex.B2	23.08.2013	Copy of communication from ICICI Lombard
Ex.B3		Copy of Amortization Chart

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT