STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (IN APPEAL NO.239 OF 2010) Date of Institution: 02.07.2010 Date of Decision: 22.12.2010 L.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd. through its Area Manager having its Branch Office at S.C.O No.2445-46, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. ……Appellant. VersusSh. Ram Niwas S/o Sh. Satnarain R/o House No.1726, Phase-V, SAS Nagar, Mohali. ....Respondent. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. O. P. Narang, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Gagan Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. (APPEAL NO.241 OF 2010) Date of Institution: 05.07.2010 Date of Decision: 22.12.2010 Sh. Ram Niwas S/o SH. Satnarain R/o House No.1726, Phase-V, SAS Nagar, Mohali. ……Appellant. Versus1. LIC Housing Finance Limited, SCO No.2445-46, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager. 2. LIC Housing Finance Limited, Bombay Life Building, 2nd Floor, 45/47, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai-400 001 through its Managing Director. ....Respondents. Argued by: Sh. Gagan Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. O. P. Narang, Advocate for the respondents. PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. 1. This order will dispose of two appeals under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 one bearing F.A. No.241 of 2010 filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation and rescheduling of loan installments and the other F.A. No.329 of 2010 filed by OPs for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.5.2010 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which the OPs were directed to disburse the balance sanctioned loan amount of Rs.1,70,000/- to the complainant and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation. If the amount is not paid within 45 days from the receipt of certified copy of the order, OPs shall pay interest @12% per annum on the unpaid loan amount of Rs.1,70,000/- and compensation from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order till the date of realization. 2. The case of the complainant is that he approached the OPs for sanction of a loan of Rs.5,70,000/- under the scheme known as Griha Prakash, at which the rate of interest was 10.50 % per annum. The loan was sanctioned vide Annexure C-1. The amount was to be repaid in monthly installments of Rs.5,689/-. The OPs released a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as loan and thereafter, did not disburse the remaining amount even inspite of requests. In order to complete the house, the complainant obtained a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as loan from I.C.I.C.I Bank. The OPs did not even reschedule the installments even inspite of requests and a legal notice. The complainant, therefore, prayed for the release of the remaining amount of Rs.1,70,000/- and for rescheduling the installments. He also prayed for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and interest @12% per annum on the un-disbursed amount. 3. The OPs in their reply admitted having sanctioned the loan of Rs.5,70,000/- and having disbursed only Rs.4,00,000/- to him. Their contention is that the complainant got the Sale Deed of the plot executed for Rs.5,50,000/- instead of Rs.10,00,000/-, which was earlier intimated to the OPs. He was said to have obtained a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from his employer also due to which the remaining amount of loan was not disbursed. 4. Both the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence in support of their contentions. 5. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to release the remaining sanctioned loan amount of Rs.1,70,000/- and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation besides Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation and also to pay interest @12% per annum on the un-disbursed amount as mentioned in the opening para of this order. Both the parties have challenged the impugned order through these appeals. 6. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the OPs is that the remaining sanctioned loan amount of Rs.1,70,000/- was not disbursed due to the reason that Sale Deed was got executed by the complainant for a lesser amount of Rs.5,50,000/- instead of Rs.10,00,000/- as was earlier agreed. It is not their case, if the complainant has purchased some other property, which is of lesser value. In this manner, this argument of learned counsel cannot succeed because for the plot in question and in order to raise construction thereon, they had agreed to disburse a sum of Rs.5,70,000/-, out of which, they disbursed only Rs.4,00,000/-. The learned counsel for the OPs could not point out any term of the sanction order (Annexure C-1) in which it may be mentioned that the full amount would not be disbursed if the Sale Deed is executed for a lesser amount nor is it mentioned that they would pay only 80% or 85% of the amount of the Sale Deed. In fact, this term has now been introduced by the OPs in order to justify their wrong action in withholding the sanctioned loan amount. 8. As observed by the learned District Forum, Rs.5,50,000/- was not the only amount spent by the complainant on the purchase of the plot and construction of the house. The OPs did not take into consideration the amount spent by the complainant on the construction of the house though the scheme has been named by them as ‘Griha Prakash’, which means ‘Light in the house’. There could not be any light in the house, if the house is not constructed. The OPs, however, did not make the payment of the amount of Rs.1,70,000/-, which was to be utilized by the complainant for the construction of the house. 9. The rate of interest at which the OPs had advanced the loan amount was 10.50% per annum. When the OPs withheld the amount, the complainant had to get the loan from I.C.I.C.I Bank at a much higher rate of 21% per annum as is mentioned in Annexure C-4. The complainant, therefore, had to pay a higher rate of interest on the loan amount and suffered loss on that account also. The learned counsel for the OPs has not been able to point out any such term and condition of the bond under which they could subsequently withhold the sanctioned amount of the loan on any such ground. It was, therefore, arbitrary action on the part of the OPs, which caused not only mental and physical harassment to the complainant but caused him financial hardship and loss. The learned District Forum, therefore, rightly directed the OPs to release the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- withheld by them. 10. The learned District Forum has directed the OPs to pay interest @12% per annum on the unpaid loan amount of Rs.1,70,000/- from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In our opinion, the interest should be paid by the OPs from the same date i.e. 18.10.2008, on which the complainant obtained the loan from I.C.I.C.I Bank vide Annexure C-4 because he had started paying the higher rate of interest to I.C.I.C.I Bank from that date due to the non disbursement of the loan amount by the OPs. 11. The OPs, on one hand, have withheld the loan amount of Rs.1,70,000/- and on the other, they have directed the complainant to pay the same amount of installment as if the full amount of loan of Rs.5,70,000/- had been disbursed to him. The installment amount of Rs.5,689/- was worked out by the OPs by adding interest on the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- also which has not been disbursed to him. In this manner, the OPs are getting interest on the said amount also, which is further a financial loss to the complainant. Further the OPs did not bother to see the financial implications involved in withholding of the amount because if the loan had been advanced in full, the complainant would not have obtained the loan from the I.C.I.C.I Bank and would not have been liable to pay Rs.3,097/- as installment to the I.C.I.C.I Bank. He is, therefore, burdened to pay this additional amount every month causing unnecessary burden on him. The direction to the OPs to reschedule the loan installment is, therefore, perfectly legal and valid. 12. As regards the contention that the OP is a public institution and cannot be expected to squander money and therefore, leniency should be taken towards it, we find no merit in this argument. The OP would be free to recovery the amount of compensation, interest and cost from the officers/officials who committed the default thereby burdening the OP to pay the said amount due to their wrongful acts. However, recovery from such officers/officials should be effected after giving them a notice to show cause against the proposed action. 13. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the appeal filed by the OPs i.e. F.A. No.239 of 2010 has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed with litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-. The appeal filed by the complainant i.e. F.A. No.241 of 2010 is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.5.2010 is modified to the extent that the interest @12% per annum shall be paid by the OPs w.e.f. 18.10.2008. They are also directed to reschedule the installment amount in view of the loan disbursed to the complainant. 14. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 22nd December 2010. Sd/- [JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Sd/- [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER Ad/-
STATE COMMISSION (APPEAL NO.239 OF 2010) Argued by: Sh. O. P. Narang, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Gagan Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. Dated the 22nd day of December 2010. ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal filed by the OPs has been dismissed with litigation costs of Rs.10,000/- whereas the cross appeal bearing F.A. No.241 of 2010 filed by the complainant has been allowed. (JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) (JUSTICE PRITAM PAL) (NEENA SAHDHU) MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (APPEAL NO.241 OF 2010) Date of Institution: 05.07.2010 Date of Decision: 22.12.2010 Sh. Ram Niwas S/o SH. Satnarain R/o House No.1726, Phase-V, SAS Nagar, Mohali. ……Appellant. Versus1. LIC Housing Finance Limited, SCO No.2445-46, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager. 2. LIC Housing Finance Limited, Bombay Life Building, 2nd Floor, 45/47, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai-400 001 through its Managing Director. ....Respondents. BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. Gagan Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. O. P. Narang, Advocate for the respondents. PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER. 1. For orders, see the orders passed in Appeal No.239 of 2010 titled ‘L.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd. Vs. Sh. Ram Niwas’ vide which this appeal has been allowed. 2. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Pronounced. 22nd December 2010. Sd/- [JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Sd/- [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL] MEMBER Ad/- STATE COMMISSION (APPEAL NO.239 OF 2010) Argued by: Sh. O. P. Narang, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Gagan Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. Dated the 21st day of December 2010. ORDER Arguments heard. The case is reserved for orders. (JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) (JUSTICE PRITAM PAL) (NEENA SAHDHU) MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER Rb/-
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | | 
