Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/313

Vikram Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB Housing Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Inderpreet Singh Adv.

10 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 313 of 27.04.2016

   Date of Decision            :  10.10.2017

Vikram Jain son of Sh.Prem Chand Jain, resident of 32/33, Mahavir Colony, Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                            Versus       

1.PNB Housing Finance Limited, SCO No.16-17, 2^nd Floor, Canal Colony, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana, through its Branch Head.

2.PNB Housing Finance Limited, having its registered office at 9^th Floor, Antriksh Bhawan, 22, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, through its Managing Director.

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant               :         Sh.Inderjeet Singh Tata, Advocate

For Ops                           :         Sh.Alok Mohindra, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                           Complainant availed housing loan from Ops vide two different loan accounts of amount of Rs.49 lac and Rs.4,70,00,000/- bearing Nos.HOU/LUD/0415/215783 and 00046660003349. Complainant requested Ops        for foreclosure of housing loan facility in February 2016 by agreeing to pay the entire loan amount. However, pre-payment charges/penalties  were called from the complainant against circular No.DNBPS (PD.CC. No.399/03.10.42/2014-15) dated 14.7.2014 issued by the Reserve Bank of India. Complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.82,763/- as pre-payment charges in one loan account, but Rs.10,48,857/- in the second loan account. Act of charging of this amount of Rs.11,31,620/- alleged to be an illegal act. So, refund of the same with interest @18% per annum along with compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.55,000/- more claimed.

2.                 In joint written reply submitted by Ops, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is based on wrong facts and the same is filed with malafide intention to get undue and unwarranted monetary benefit from Ops. Besides, it is claimed that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum, due to which, he is not entitled to any relief. Rather, it is claimed that M/s Aditya Knits Pvt. Ltd, a private company was one of the co-borrowers in the loan accounts and as such, loans were not contracted by an individual. Rather, loans were contracted by group of borrowers including a company or a firm and as such, benefit from circular of RBI is not available to the complainant. Admittedly, the loan amount has been repaid. It is claimed that the purpose of present complaint is to seek relief of recovery, which cannot be granted by this Forum because for that purpose, complainant must approach the Civil Court by filing civil suit, particularly when elaborate evidence required for adjudicating the controversy. Moreover, it is claimed that after repayment of loan amount, relationship of borrower and service provider has come to an end and as such, complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. Complainant along with Smt.Rupali Jain, Sh.Prem Chand Jain, Smt.Sudesh Kumari Jain and M/s Aditya Knits Pvt. Ltd availed group facility amounting to Rs.4,70,00,000/- on creation of equitable mortgaged in favour of Ops. Loan agreement was signed by the complainant along with above named co-borrowers and as such, it was not an individual loan. As complainant along with above named borrowers aspired to prepay the loan amount and as such, after acceptance of their requests for foreclosure, their loan accounts  were closed after              acceptance of loan amount and pre-payment charges/foreclosure charges as per terms and conditions of loan agreement. Ops, the housing Finance Ltd company is registered with the National Housing Bank (NHB) as per terms of Section 29-A of National Housing Bank Act, 1987. Intimation regarding claim of foreclosure/pre-payment charges was given to the complainant as per rules and regulations and as such, it is claimed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and nor they adopted any unfair trade practice.

3.                 Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents annexure-Z1 to annexure-Z8 and then he closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Rajinish Gupta, Authorized Officer of OPs along with documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R6 and then closed the evidence.

5.                 Written arguments in this case submitted by the complainant alone, but not by OPs. Oral arguments by counsel for parties addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                 Annexure Z1 is the letter of sanction of loan showing as if besides complainant Vikram Jain, the other co-borrowers are Mrs.Rupali Jain, Mr.Prem Chand Jain, Mrs. Sudesh Kumari Jain and M/s Aditya Knits Pvt. Ltd. Same even borne from the contents of loan closure statement annexure-Z5, Z6 and Z8 and also from perusal of loan agreement annexure-R2; disbursement letter contained in assessment kit annexure-R3; demand promissory note, letter of continuity and other documents produced by Ops, which are part of disbursement kit annexure-R3. All these loan documents were signed not only by the complainant, but even by Mrs.Rupali Jain, Mr.Prem Chand Jain, Mrs. Sudesh Kumari Jain and also by the complainant as proprietor of M/s Aditya Knits Pvt. Ltd. So, from this material produced on record, it is made out that loans in question were not contracted by the complainant as individual borrower, but it was contracted by group      of borrowers, out of which, one was M/s Aditya Knits Pvt. Ltd, a firm/company. It is on account of this that letter annexure-R5 was sent to Aditya Knits at his email address by Ops for disclosing as if the loan in respect of which foreclsore/prepayment charges sought is a loan contracted by non individual as well as individual borrowers and that is why, pre-payment fees are payable. This intimation was given as per circular annexure-R6 of NHB. That circular clearly provides that when the loan is contracted by a company/firm etc., then the borrower or co-borrowers concerned excluded from the purview of non-payment of pre-payment charges. So,  if pre-payment charges     claimed by Ops from the complainant in respect of loans in question not contracted by the individual borrowers alone, but by a group of borrowers including a firm/company, then the same is claimed as per terms and conditions of circular of NHB.

7.                 Besides, if the contents of complaint itself taken into consideration that two loans of Rs.49 lac and Rs.4,70,00,000/- contracted, then the same enough to establish as if the loan was not contracted in individual capacity, but these loans were contracted for carrying on business at high scale. No individual will contract the loan of worth of more than of Rs.5 crore for individual need. Rather, contraction of two loans of Rs.5,19,00,000/- by the complainant along with co-borrowers itself enough to reflect as if the loans were contracted for carrying on commercial activities for earning profit at huge scale. As and when services availed for commercial activities, then the complainant concerned will not be a consumer in view of law laid down in cases titled as R.K.Handicraft and others vs. M/s Parmanand Ganda Singh & Company and others-II(2015)CPJ-13(N.C.); Lords Wear Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rance Computer Pvt. Ltd.-I(2014)CPJ-332(N.C.); Manu Talwar vs. DPT Ltd-IV(2015)CPJ-396(N.C.); Pharos Solution Pvt. Ltd. and others vs.Tata Motors Ltd., Bombay House-2015(IV)CLT-265(N.C.); Jagrook Nagrik and others vs. Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. and others-III(2015)CPJ-1(N.C.); Birla Technologies Limited vs. Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Limited-(2011)1-Supreme Court Cases-525(S.C.) and Nikita Cares vs. Surya Palace IV(2015)CPJ-405(N.C.), and as such, certainly this consumer complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Moreover, it is the case of the complainant that he has repaid the entire loan amount by paying the prepayment charges under compulsion and if that be the position, then complainant ceased to be a consumer     after foreclosure of loan accounts. For holding this view, reference can be made to    law laid down in cases titled as Mithra Agencies vs. Bank of Baroda-2015(2)CLT-554(Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) and Coastal Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Bank of India-2015(1)CLT-442(Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun). Ratio of both these cases lays that when account is closed by the complainant as consumer with the Bank, then he ceases to be a consumer and the consumer complaint becomes not maintainable. Ratio of both these cases is fully applicable to the facts of the present case, particularly when this complaint filed on 27.4.2016, after the closure of loan account on 3.3.2016 i.e. after more than one month of foreclosure of loan accounts. There is nothing on record to suggest that foreclosure charges paid under protest and as such, these were paid voluntarily. If that be the position, then certainly complainant ceased to be a consumer and this consumer complaint is not maintainable. No case of deficiency in service or of adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of Ops is made out and as such, complaint deserves dismissal.

8.                 Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

9.                 File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                                     (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                                              President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:10.10.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.