Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/13/2014

Ram Lal Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Capital L.t.d - Opp.Party(s)

31 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	13 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	08.01.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	31.03.2015

 

 

 

 

 

1]  Ram Lal Garg, House No.2202, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.

 

2]  Shashi Bala, W/o Ram Lal Garg, House No.2202, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainants

 

Versus

 

1]  Reliance Capital Ltd., SCO No.309-310, First Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Manager.

 

2]  Reliance Capital Ltd., H-Block, First Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai 400710 through its Managing Director.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

        

 

Argued By:  Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for complainant.

Sh.Puneet Tuli, Counsel for OPs.

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU , MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case of the complainants, they have been sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.1,14,00,000/- by the OPs against property for their personal use and construction of the house.  A loan agreement was executed between the complainants and OPs (Ann.C-1). It is averred that the said loan was to be repaid in 180 monthly installments with rate of interest as 12.50% floating with PLR-0.05%. As per the agreement, in case of foreclosure of loan, the foreclosure charges were 5% within 12 months from the disbursement of the loan and 2% after 12 months from the disbursement of loan.  It is also averred that the rate of interest was increased by the RBI from time to time and the same was increased by the OPs also and as such, it had gone to 14.25% from 12.50%.  However, thereafter the RBI reduced the rates of interest, but inspite of that the OPs did not reduced the rate of interest though the loan obtained by the complainants was on floating rate of interest. Then, the complainants got the account statement on payment of Rs.200/- (Ann.C-2 & C-3) and asked the OPs to foreclose the loan, but on this, they agreed to reschedule the loan on reduced rates and got a blank document and acceptance letter signed from the complainants.  Ultimately, the said loan was got foreclosed by making the payment of loan amount as well as Rs.2,21,345.16p. as 2% foreclosure charges (Ann.C-6 & C-7).

 

         It is pleaded that in April, 2013, when the complainants approached Punjab National Bank for availing some loan facility, they were informed that the CIBIL record is showing their negative credibility as the loan account with Reliance Capital is being shown as Settled, hence the loan can be disbursed at a higher rate of interest.  When the OPs refused to remove the word Settled from their accounts and updation of status of loan (Ann.C-10), the complainants served a legal notice, whereupon they were informed that CIBIL status has been updated to ‘closed’ as desired (Ann.C-11 to C-13).  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said acts & conducts of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed joint reply and admitted the grant of loan in question at floating rate of interest, execution of loan agreement between the parties and foreclosure of the loan by the complainants. It is stated that the complainant has itself placed on record the document at Ann.C-4 wherein the terms & conditions for reduction of the rate of interest have been categorically admitted and accepted by the complainants by putting their signatures.  It is also stated that the complainants have applied for reschedulement of the loan, which was considered by the OPs and the rate of interest was reduced by 1% as has been mentioned in the communication.  It is submitted that as part of the amended terms, which have been accepted by the complainants also, additional foreclosure charges were applicable as has been mentioned in Ann.C-4.  The basic dispute as has been raised by the complainants relates to the said additional foreclosure charges of 2%, which have been subsequently waived of by the Opposite Parties on their request, hence the reporting was correctly showed as ‘Settled”.  It is pleaded that the complaint is time barred.  It is denied that the OPs at any time refused to foreclose the loan account of the complainants.  Ann.C-11 and C-13 have admitted as matter of record.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The complainants have preferred the present complaint against the Opposite Parties on the ground that they had availed a loan against property in the year 2007 for a period of 15 years, which was sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 26.11.2007. However, after briefly continuing with the said loan for a period of nearly two years, they had expressed their desire of closing the same and on their such request, the Opposite Parties issued a foreclosure statement of account dated 27.7.2009 vide which a total amount of Rs.1,16,84,669.03 was calculated to be paid by the complainants for the foreclosure of their loan account, which they paid and the said loan account was settled on the basis of the foreclosure statement dated 27.7.2009. 

 

6]       The complainants thereafter preferred to approach Punjab National Bank for availing a loan facility, which was denied, informing them that the CIBIL Record showed their name in negative credibility as the loan amount with the Opposite Parties was being shown as “settled” and for such reason, the complainants felt aggrieved and communicated their desire of updation of their status with CIBIL to the Opposite Parties through their e-mail dated 7.9.2013, but the OPs refused to do the needful.  Thereafter, the complainants served a legal notice dated 5.10.2013, which was duly replied by the advocate of the OPs and it was disclosed that the complainant’s status with the CIBIL has been updated to “Closed”, as they desire. The complainant’s have alleged the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties for the reason that they have failed in giving correct information to the CIBIL in the first instance and thereafter refused to address their grievance raised through e-mails dated 7.9.2013.  But it was only after a lapse of nearly 3 years and service of a legal notice upon them that the status with the CIBIL was changed.  Thus causing them great mental harassment and agony, entitling them to the quoted relief.

 

7]      The Opposite Parties have contested the claim of the complainants and have claimed that the complainant is not entitled to any relief nor there is any deficiency in service on their part, for the reason that the OPs were entitled to recover the foreclosure charges to the extent of 4% of the outstanding principle, which according to them was reduced to be 2% after waiving of the 2% over and above, which they were entitled to as the loan of the complainants was rescheduled as mentioned in their letter dated 7.9.2013.  The Opposite Parties have claimed that on the basis of such waiver the case of the complainants was declared as “Settled” and the same status was conveyed to CIBIL and therefore, there was no deficiency in service on their part for which the complainants could be given the relief desired by them.

 

8]       We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by the parties and are of the opinion that the Opposite Parties having taken a stand, as disclosed in their e-mail to the complainants, dated 7.9.2013 that at the time of closure of the loan, as per company policy, an additional pre-payment charges of 2% on outstanding principle would be applicable over & above the normal pre-payment charges of 2%, if the loan is pre-closed within 24 months after the re-schedulement i.e. total pre-payment charges of 4% on principle outstanding was applicable.  Therefore, the Opposite Parties had collected pre-payment charges of 2% on outstanding principle instead of 4% and remaining pre-payment charges of 2% were waived off, hence the case was considered as settled. 

 

9]       We have gone through the contents of the reply of the Opposite Parties but have failed to locate any particular instance where the said loan of the complainants was rescheduled, for them to qualify for an additional pre-payment charges of 2% on the principle outstanding at the time of foreclosure of such loan within 24 months of such re-schedulement.  As there is no record of reschedulement of loan nor disclosure of any particular date on which such reschedulement was done, therefore, in the absence of any such happening and also a supportive evidence to that effect, the claim of the Opposite Parties of reschedulement of the loan, carried no weight. It is necessary to quote here that the mortgage loan agreement Ann.C-1, placed on record by the complainant, too does not carry any such condition, whereas the offer of sanction of the captioned loan, dated 26.11.2007, only mentions about the charging of foreclosure charges at 5% plus service tax within 12 months of disbursement and 2% plus service tax thereafter on the outstanding principle amount.  Therefore, as per the contents of this sanction letter and also the agreement Ann.C-1, the Opposite Parties were not entitled for an additional 2% foreclosure amount over & above the applicable rate of 2% and the claim of the Opposite Parties that an additional 2% was claim as per company policy cannot be made applicable in the absence of any company policy document, which the OPs preferred not to place on record.  Therefore, the Opposite Parties were entitled only to claim 2% of the foreclosure amount as per the foreclosure statement dated 27.7.2009 and the case of the complainants were required to be declared as “Closed” rather than as “Settled” as found mentioned in the CIBIL report, thus causing a negative credit worthiness of the complainants denying them their right to seek further loan from other financial institution.  Hence, the act of the Opposite Parties in having recovered the entire amount, as per the foreclosure statement dated 27.7.2009 and not having declared the status of the complainants as “Closed” amounts to deficiency in service on their part.    

 

10]       In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in service to the complainants. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainants is allowed qua OPs jointly & severally. The Opposite Parties are directed jointly & severally to pay an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- along with litigation expenses amounting to Rs.7000/-   

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/- from the date of this order till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses of Rs.7000/-. 

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

31^st March, 2015

                                                                             Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER