Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/176/2020

Vijay Malhotra - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB Housing Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

15 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/176/2020
Date of Institution	:	10.6.2020
Date of Decision	:	15.5.2023

 

Vijay Malhotra son of late Shri Jai Kishan  Malhotra R/o  H. No.41, Parshant Vihar, Baltana, sub Tehsil Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar.

.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.   PNB Housing Finance Limited having its Branch at SCO No.323-324, First floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh(UT) through  its Manager/authorized signatory.

2.   PNB Housing Finance Limited, having its registered office at 9^th floor, Antriksh Bhawan, 22 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110001 through its authorized signatory.  

.  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		None for the complainant.
		Sh. Sumit Puri vice counsel for Ms. Aditi Sheoran, counsel for OPs.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

1. Briefly stated the complainant availed loan from the OP No.1 sanctioned vide letter dated 10.7.2013.  The tenure of the loan was for 7 years. Thereafter when on 10.1.2020 the complainant approached the  OP No.1 to know about the pending loan which  was going to finish in June 2020, he shocked to know that the OP No.1 increased the loan from Rs.7.00 lakh to Rs.8,52,719/-   and also increased the tenure from 7 years to 10 years but kept the EMI same i.e. Rs.12,830/-. When the complainant protested the aforesaid act of OP No.1 it was informed that the loan amount was secured through insurance cover of TATA AIA  and in case of death the entire loan shall be paid by the insurance company. The complainant was handed over the insurance documents. After examining the said documents, it came to the knowledge of the complainant that the said insurance was covering the loan upto 19.6.2020 i.e. for 7 year only and not for 10 years. The said fact was brought to the notice of OP No.1 but it did not reply satisfactorily. The complainant many times requested the OPs to clear the loan as per sanction letter dated 10.7.2013 but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed
2. The Opposite Parties NO.1&2 in their reply stated that the  loan sanctioned letter dated 10.7.2013 placed on record by the complainant is not  actually a loan sanction letter as the same does not contain any stamp of the answering Ops nor  any signatures of the OP bank rather the OP has placed on record Annexure R-2 dated 4.6.2013.  It is averred that Rs.7.00 lakh were disbursed to the complainant on 6.6.2013 and complainant handed over signed repayment cheques for Rs.12830/- as against loan of Rs.7.00 lakh. Subsequently on the request of the complainant the insurance amount was also disbursed on 11.6.2013  to the respective insurance company at the behest of the complainant. Therefore,  the total repayable amount by the complainant then stood at Rs.8,52,719/- and the enhanced EMI amount became Rs.15631/-. However, the complainant did not replace his previous cheques with enhanced EMI cheques for Rs.15631. Thus the OP kept on deducting Rs.12830/- as EMI by presenting his previous cheques only for the  convenience of the complainant and as a result to cover the whole  loan amount of Rs.8,52,719 the loan tenure had to be increased accordingly to 10 years. Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs. Denying all other allegations levelled in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Despite affording many opportunities to file rejoinder the complainant did not file the same hence, the opportunity to file rejoinder was closed vide order dated 23.6.2022.
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.  The main grievance of the complainant is that after availing of loan of Rs.7,00,000/- in the year 2013 from OP No.1 the loan amount as shown was increased to Rs.8,52,719/-  with EMI of Rs.12830/- and the tenure of the loan was also increased to 10 years.
7. We have perused Annexure R-2 which is a loan sanction letter, produced on record by the OPs. A bare perusal of the sanction letter clearly indicates that the same has duly been signed by borrower/complainant and the bank and also duly stamped by the OP bank.  wherein all the details of the loan has been given which also indicates the details of insurance wherein it is clearly mentioned that the insurance premium is not included in the sanctioned loan of Rs.7.00 lakh  as is the defence of the OPs. Meaning thereby in addition to loan of Rs.7.00 lakh, the complainant also availed Rs.1,49,966/  from the OPs bank towards the insurance  premium of the loan which obviously increased the amount of the loan and its tenure. Hence, we find no merit in the instant complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
9.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member   Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member