Haryana

StateCommission

CC/110/2016

PRABHA MALIK AND RAVINDER SINGH MALIK - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE HOME FINANCE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

BHUSHAN BHATIA

25 May 2016

ORDER

                  STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,          PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.110 of 2016

                                             Date of Institution: 03.05.2016                  Date of Decision: 25.05.2016

 

1.       Prabha Malik W/o Sh.Ravinder Singh Malik, r/o H.No.139, Sector-2, Panchkula.

2.      Sh.Ravinder Singh Malik S/o Late Sh.Vijay Pal Singh R/o H.No. 139, Sector-2, Panchkula.

…..Complainants

 

Versus

 

1. M/s Reliance Home Finance Ltd., 309-310 1^st and 2^nd Floor, Sector 35 B Chandigarh 160022 through its Branch Manager.
2. M/s Reliance Capital Ltd., 309-310 Ist and 2^nd floor, Sector 35 B Chandigarh 160022 through its Branch Manager.
3. M/s Reliance Home Finance Ltd., Commercial  Finance Division, 3^rd floor,  570, Rectifier House, Naigaum Cross Road, Wadala Mumbai-400031 through Division Head.

          …..Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                      

For the parties:  Mr.Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate counsel for the complainants.

                            

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

It is alleged by the complainants that  to set up office at Panchkula they entered into an agreement to purchase SCF No.6, Sector-2, Panchkula which was pointed out by the employees of the opposite parties (O.Ps.). The representatives of O.ps. assured to get the loan of Rs.2,25,00,000/- sanctioned which would be transferred in their favour at the time of the final transfer of property.  As per agreement dated 06.12.2014 with  vendor, price was settled at Rs.2,34,00,000/-, out of which they were to pay Rs.9,00,000/- lacs which was paid by them.   After completion of loan formalities documents were executed on 29.12.2014.  Undated vouchers were got signed from them to be used as consideration voucher.  The loan was to be debited in their account after the transfer of the property, but, the same was debited on 29.12.2014 and they started charging interest. Despite their objection no proper action was taken. They stopped payment of the cheque which was submitted by O.Ps. without their consent. When the property was transferred in their name the bank was adviced to clear the cheque. Due to unfair trade practice of O.Ps., they suffered loss to the tune of Rs.25,41,260/-, as mentioned in the complaint, and they be directed to pay the same besides Rs.Five lacs for physical harassment etc, Rs.Two lacs for deterrent damages and Rs.50,000/- for litigation expenses. 

2.      Arguments heard. File perused.

3.      From the perusal of the pleadings of the complainants and the documents available on the file it is clear that this loan was granted for business expansion, which is commercial transaction. For ready reference the terms and conditions mentioned in para No.8 of the complaint are reproduced as under:-

“Sanctioned amount	2,25,00,000/- (Rs. Two crore Twenty Five lac only)
Purpose of loan	Business Expansion
RHFL PLR (ROI)	18.25%
Rate of interest	RHFL PLR as notified from time to time plus/minus of 5.50% = 12.75% or the applicable at the time of disbursement.
Tenure	120 months
Periodicity of interest application	Monthly
Repayment	Equated monthly installments of Rs.332640/- towards payment of principal and interest.
Security	Mortgage of Immovable property situated at comm. Prop SCF No.6P, Sector 2 Panchkula.
PDC/ECS including security PDC	PDC: 36 PDCs for EMI amount + 3 security PDC equal to loan amt. ECS: 3 security PDCs of EMI amount + 3 security PDC of loan amt.
EMI Date	EMI date subject to loan disbursement date 5th of every month if disbursed between 16th to 5th of the month 15th of every month if disbursed between 6th to 15th of the month
Fees and charges	Total PF (Rs.126826) and pending PF (Rs.0/-)
Stamp duty and Registration charges + service tax	To be borne by the borrower
Stamp duty charges (pertaining to loan documents)	To be borne by the borrower
You have chosen to avail an optional insurance	NA

”

It is clearly mentioned therein that this loan was sanctioned for business expansion. This fact is also mentioned in sanction letter C-2. It shows that this loan was taken for the expansion of business which is for commercial purpose and is not covered by Section 2 (i) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short “Act”).  These views are also fortified by the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Pradeep Singh Pahal Vs. TDI infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. CPJ 1 (2016) 219.

4.      As a sequal to above discussion the transaction is of commercial type and complaint does not lie before this Commission.  Hence the complaint is hereby dismissed in limine.

 

May 25th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi  Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

S.K.