DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                        Complaint No. CC/15/59 of  12.03.2015.

                                        Decided on:        13.03.2015.

1. Hardeep Singh Dhaliwal son of Mohinder Singh, aged 49 years, resident of House No.16, Maharaja Yadvindra Enclave, Nabha Road, Patiala.

2. Smt. Ravinder Kaur Dhaliwal wife of Hardeep Singh Dhaliwal, aged 49 years, resident of House No.16, Maharaja Yadvindra Enclave, Nabha Road, Patiala.

                                                                             Complainants

                                                Versus

State Bank of Patiala through the Chief Manager, RASMECCC, Urban Estate, Ph. 2, Patiala

                                                                             Opposite  party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh. D.R. Arora, President.

                                      Smt. Neelam Arora, Member.

                                      Smt. Sonia Bansal, Member.

Present:                          Complainant Sh. Hardeep Singh Dhaliwal in person.

ORDER

D.R. ARORA:

1.       It is alleged by the complainants that the complainants were sanctioned housing loan of Rs.29 Lacs by the O.P on 29.10.2011, which was disbursed as per the terms of the agreement and the complainants have been paying the EMIs as per schedule drawn by the O.P.

2.       On a perusal of the statement of account dated 01.08.2013, it was transpired that a sum of Rs.9,000/- and Rs.3,833/-  were debited into the account of the complainants on 24.11.2011 on account of building insurance charges. Clause 7 of the agreement does not mandate the building assurance charges to be borne by the complainants unlike clauses no.8 and 9, which expressly state so. These charges are liable to be borne by the O.P. The building insurance was desired by the O.P and not by the complainant.  

3.       It is also the plea taken up by the complainant that the market value of the land alone of the plot is more than Rs.1 Crore whereas the loan amount was raised for Rs.29 Lacs only. The complainants requested the O.P to revert the debit entry of Rs.12,833/- with interest vide their letter dated 10.05.2014, 26.09.2014 and 29.12.2014 but to no effect. Accordingly, the complainants have brought this complaint against the O.P under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) for a direction to the O.P to revert the debit entry of Rs.12,833/- with interest and further to award cost of the complaint.

4.       The complainants have placed on file the copy of the arrangement letter-housing finance dated 29.10.2011 sanctioned by the Chief Manager, State Bank of Patiala RASMECCC, Patiala qua the agreement arrived at between the complainants and the O.P bank. Clause 7 of the agreement provides, “The house/flat shall be insured comprehensively for the market value covering fire, flood etc. in the joint names of the Bank and the borrower.” Clause 9 of the agreement further provides, “All legal expenses, like solicitor’s and lawyer’s fees, valuer’s fees, insurance premia, stamp duty, registration charges and other incidental expenses incurred in connection with the loan should be borne by you.” When the agreement arrived at between the parties is very much clear that all the expenses regarding insurance premia in respect of the insurance of the house/flat shall be borne by the borrower, we fail to understand as to how the complainants can say that the same had to be borne by the bank and not by the complainants. In case the complainants were not interested in getting the house/flat insured, they should have got the said clause i.e. clause no.7 deleted. The complainants cannot enjoy the benefit of the insurance of the property for which the loan has been raised without paying premium for the same. The complainants should have raised the objections when a sum of Rs.9,000/- and then a sum of Rs.3,833/- were debited to their account Annexure-P1 by the O.P on 24.11.2011 but the complainants never raised any issue  with the O.P in this regard. The complainants raised the issue for the first time vide their letter dated 27.09.2014 sent to the O.P through registered post without stating that the containing of the clause (7) in the agreement regarding the insurance of the house/flat was a result of fraud or misrepresentation. Consequently, we are of the considered view that no prima facie in respect of any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice is made out on the part of the O.P and consequently, we find that the complaint is not maintainable and same is hereby ordered to be rejected. Copy of the order be supplied to the complainants free of costs.

Pronounced.

Dated: 13.03.2015.

                                      Sonia Bansal     Neelam Arora                   D.R. Arora

                                      Member             Member                            President