BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 371/2002 Filed on 28.08.2002
Dated : 17.01.2011
Complainant:
S. Ajaya Kumar, Ajith Bhavan, Javahar Colony, Ex-Service Men's Colony P.O, Pacha-Palode, Thiruvananthapuram-695 562.
(Appeared in person)
Opposite parties:
Ratheesh K. Das, Accounts Officer.
Sreekumaran Nair M.S, HDFC House, P.B. No. 2288, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.
Addl. Opposite party :
The Manager, HDFC House Ltd., Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. A. Subramonian)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 20.07.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 30.10.2010, the Forum on 17.01.2011 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER
The facts of the case are as follows: Complainant had availed a housing loan for Rs. 1,10,000/- in May 2001 from HDFC, Vazhuthacaud. The complainant had to repay the same in 180 months of Rs. 1,369/-. Complainant had given security of one acre of his property, his salary certificate along with 20 cheque leaves of SBT Palode for Rs. 1,369/- as requested by the opposite party bank. The loan was granted after the payment of service charge. The complainant further pleads that he had paid Rs. 271/- extra for the amount to be paid from May 2001 to April 2002 which comes to Rs. 16,669/-. The opposite party calculated the amount for closing the loan and accordingly, opposite party asked the complainant to pay Rs. 1,09,425/-till 10.05.2002 on 02.05.2002. Accordingly the complainant had paid the entire amount and closed the loan, but in the documents returned on 25th May, only 8 cheque leaves were returned and the other cheque leaves were not returned though requested by the complainant. The complainant pleads that he has never made any transaction with the opposite party by using his cheques. The amounts were paid directly by him. Now the complainant has been asked to pay the premium for the month of April on 22.07.2002. Opposite party has asked the complainant to pay Rs. 1,789/- with interest. The complainant has pleaded that prepayment charge of Rs. 652/- and incidental charges of Rs. 1,260/- has been collected from him. Hence he prays for refund of the said amount collected from him additionally along with return of 12 cheque leaves and for compensation and costs.
In the version of the opposite parties 1 & 2, they have taken out a contention that the complaint is not maintainable as against the respondents. The respondents are the employees of Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited.
Opposite parties 1 to 3 in their version further contended that complainant had availed of Rs. 1,10,000/- as loan from the Thiruvananthapuram Branch of Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited agreeing to repay the same in 180 equated monthly installments of Rs. 1,369/-. Towards payment of 20 monthly installments he had issued 20 cheque leaves. As per the rules of Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., the borrower has to pay service charge for availing loan. The complainant also has paid the service charge as charged from all the borrowers. It is averred in the complaint that the complainant has paid Rs. 271/- in addition to the amount payable for the period commencing from May 2001 to April 2002. In fact only Rs. 140/- was collected by HDFC Ltd. in addition to the amount payable during the said period. It so happened because all the cheques issued by the complainant towards repayment of monthly installments were dishonoured when presented by the HDFC Ltd. If any amount is received in addition to the monthly installments it was paid by HDFC Ltd. towards banker's charges and correspondence charges. The complainant himself admits in para 3 of the complaint that none of the cheques issued by him were honoured and that he paid cash towards equated monthly installments. The complainant has not paid the installments for the month of June 2002. The cheque issued towards that installment was also dishonoured. As per the agreement between the complainant and HDFC Ltd he is liable to pay interest, bank charges etc. on the defaulted installment. So, as on 31.12.2002, the complainant has to pay Rs. 1,789/- to HDFC Ltd. The prepayment charges, incidental charges etc. shown in the complaint are the charges charged in terms of the agreement between the complainant and HDFC Ltd., Since the loan was closed before the expiry of the agreed period i.e; 180 months, the company is entitled and the borrower is liable to pay repayment charges. Since all the cheques issued by the complainant were dishonoured, the banker's charges, postal charges etc. are to be paid by the complainant and was collected as incidental charges by HDFC Ltd. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no merit in the complaint. Since there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice alleged against the opposite parties in the complaint, this complaint cannot be entertained by this Hon'ble Forum.
Complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P7. Ext. D1 has been marked on the part of the opposite parties.
The points to be considered are:-
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and if the same is in affirmative from whom the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
Compensation and costs.
Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant has pleaded that inspite of payment of the entire amount as requested by the opposite parties, the opposite parties have further claimed additional amount from him. According to the opposite party if any amount is received in addition to the monthly installments it was paid by HDFC Ltd. towards banker's cheque charges and correspondence charges. The complainant has pleaded that he has never used his cheque leaves for payment instead he had made the entire payment in cash. We have gone through the records produced by the complainant and opposite parties. As per Ext. P3 the opposite parties have asked the complainant “should you decide to repay the loan please send a cheque/DD for Rs. 1,09,425/- by 10 May 2002” and in Ext. P3 itself it has been endorsed that DD No. 366595 dated 07.05.2002 for Rs. 1,09,425/- favouring HDFC Ltd., Account No. 646346 of Ajaya Kumar issued on 07.05.2002. Furthermore in Ext. P4 HDFC has acknowledged the receipt of the said D.D and Ext. P4 is dated 07.05.2002. From the above it is crystal clear that the complainant has made the entire amount demanded as per Ext. P3 by the opposite party. In Ext. P4 it has been further recorded that “prepaid and closed”. Things being so, the complainant has been issued with another letter dated 22.07.2002 which has been marked as Ext. P5 wherein the opposite party has recorded that as on 30.06.2002 complainant's loan account has an outstanding amount of Rs. 1,789/- and the details have been mentioned. Further as per Ext. P6 dated 18.09.2004 complainant has been asked to pay Rs. 2,318/- and as per Ext. P7 dated 09.02.2005 complainant has been again asked to pay an amount of Rs. 2,523/-. Here the pertinent aspect to be noted is that when the opposite party themselves have issued Ext. P4 stating that the entire amount of Rs. 1,09,425/- has been received towards full payment of the complainant's loan and since the same has been prepaid and closed then why Exts. P5, P6 & P7 were issued without any basis stand unexplained. Once a loan has been closed as on 02.05.2002 by paying the amount which has been demanded by the opposite party itself, then why additional amount has been claimed from the complainant has not been explained and hence it leads us to conclude that the same is without any basis. Furthermore the opposite parties have contended that the complainant has admitted that none of the cheques issued by him were honoured and that he had paid cash towards equated monthly installments and that the complainant has not paid the installment for the month of June 2002. We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant and nowhere in the complaint has the complainant pleaded that none of the cheques issued by him were honoured. Why the opposite parties have twisted the pleadings and made such unnecessary contentions require serious consideration. Further as per Ext. P4 the complainant has paid the entire amount which has been demanded by the opposite party themselves. We find that the complainant is not liable to pay any further amount to the opposite parties.
The act of the opposite parties in claiming further amount from the complainant definitely amounts to deficiency in service on their part since the entire amount has been paid towards full and final settlement by the complainant as demanded by the opposite parties within time mentioned by them. Hence we find that the complainant has to be compensated for the difficulties he had undergone due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
1st and 2nd opposite parties have been impleaded in their personal capacity and since the complainant has no consumer relationship with them, we find that the 3rd opposite party shall be responsible to compensate the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The 3rd opposite party shall return the 12 cheque leaves of the complainant (SBT Palode) along with a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and a cost of Rs. 750/- within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest at 12% from the date of order.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 17th day of January 2011.
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
jb BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
O.P. No. 371/2002
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
PW1 - S. Ajayakumar
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of receipt dated 31.01.2002.
P2 - Copy of receipt dated 12.04.2002.
P3 - Copy of letter dated 02.05.2002
P4 - Copy of letter dated 07.05.2002
P5 - Copy of letter dated 22.07.2002
P6 - Copy of letter dated 18.09.2004
P7 - Copy of reminder dated 09.02.2005
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
D1 - Loan agreement.
PRESIDENT
jb
