THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C.9/2010

Dated this the 23^rd day of October, 2018

(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.               :  President)

                                                                       Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A                       :  Member

                                                                       Sri. Joseph Mathew, M.A., L.L.B.       :  Member

ORDER

Present: Joseph Mathew, Member:

 This petition is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Petitioner’s case is that, he had applied for housing loan before the 1^st opposite party during the year 1998. He applied for Rs.2,00,000/-  loan amount but the opposite party had sanctioned only Rs.1,84,000/- towards that application. For sanctioning the said amount the opposite party had collected Rs.36,000/- as deposit from him. As per the loan agreement he has to remit Rs.2,700/- per month towards repayment of the loan amount. As such he had remitted the 1^st instalment of Rs.2,700/- on 10/09/1998. Thereafter on 14/06/1999 he had remitted Rs.1,20,000/- and on 22/09/1999 Rs.30,000/- towards that loan account. At the time of remitting Rs.30,000/- on 22/09/1999, the staff of the opposite party told him that if he is crediting the deposit amount of Rs.36,000/- towards that loan account the loan account can be closed. So he requested the 1^st opposite party to close his account by crediting the deposit amount and to return the documents pledged including the title deed, but the opposite party didn’t return the documents saying that it will be returned later. By that time he went abroad and in his absence his wife approached the 1^st opposite party many times and requested to return the documents but the opposite party has not returned the documents and sent her back saying one or other excuses.

The petitioner further stated that thereafter he received a notice from the 1^st opposite party dated 06/08/2009 stating that he had made default in payments of loan amount and an amount of Rs.1,85,933/- is outstanding as dues and under OTS scheme a deduction of Rs.69,927/- is allowed and with a demand to clear the dues after remitting the balance amount of Rs1,16,006/- using this benefit. Since he had already remitted the full amount and closed the loan account in the year 1999 itself, he issued a notice to the 1^st opposite party dated 18/08/2009 stating all the facts and demanding return of his documents, but the opposite party replied to that notice raising false and untenable contentions. The statement in that reply notice dated 17/09/2009 that still an amount of Rs.1,16,500/- is dues towards them is not true or correct. It is stated by the petitioner that even after remitting the full amount and closing the loan account the opposite parties have no right to detain his documents pledged as security and the non-delivery of the documents amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are legally bound to return the documents and he is entitled to get the same also. The said act of the opposite parties caused huge financial loss, much mental agony and such other hardships to him. As the Head Office of the 1^st opposite party the 2^nd opposite party is also liable for the act of the 1^st opposite party. Hence this petition is filed to direct the opposite parties to return the documents including title deed pledged before the 1^st opposite party at the time of availing the loan amount and to pay him an amount not less than Rs.25,000/- as compensation for his sufferings and also cost of the proceedings.

The opposite parties filed a joint version with the following contentions. It is submitted that the said loan was sanctioned under a special scheme viz. “The Jubilee House Loan Scheme”. The speciality of this scheme was that they will sanction loan on deposit of Rs.18,000/- per one lakh rupees of loan amount. The loan is sanctioning for a fixed period and the loanee has to pay only the interest. The board will get the loan amount back during this period by way of the deposit amount and the interest accruing on that amount by this period. If the loanee wants to close the loan account before the fixed time period, then he has to pay the balance amount if any towards the loan account after deducting the deposit amount and interest at 12.5% per annum accrued on that deposit amount. It is submitted that the petitioner had deposited Rs.36,000/- as deposit under the scheme on 19/05/1998 and pledged the title deed of his property at the board and based on the said deposit the board has sanctioned Rs.2,00,000/- loan amount and disbursed the amount in 3 installments as on 18/06/1998, 06/07/1998 and on 07/08/1998 respectively. After deducting the inspection charge and the interest for the period beginning from the date of acceptance of the 2^nd installment amount to the date of starting repayment, from the amount sanctioned, they had issued the cheque for Rs.1,84,000/- to the petitioner. The statement of the petitioner that the opposite party had sanctioned only Rs.1,84,000/- as loan amount was denied as false. Nobody from the office had agreed to close the loan account after crediting the deposit amount towards the loan account as alleged.

It is further stated that, the loan amount sanctioned to the petitioner was for a period of 14 years from 10/09/1998. The monthly interest fixed to be remitted by the petitioner towards the loan amount as per the loan agreement was Rs.2,700/- and as such the petitioner had to remit the said amount monthly till the end of the fixed period without fault. But the petitioner had remitted Rs.2,700/- on 10/09/1998 and thereafter Rs.1,20,000/- on 14/06/1999 ie. after a lapse of 8 months and Rs.30,000/- on 22/09/1999. As per the scheme the petitioner has to pay a total amount of Rs.4,53,600/- (Rs.2,700 X168) towards the loan account, but he had remitted only Rs.1,52,700/-. From the sanctioned amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.10,000/- was deducted as scrutiny fee and Rs.5,280/- as interest for the period beginning from the date of acceptance of the 2^nd instalment amount to the date of starting repayment.

It is also submitted that since the petitioner had remitted Rs.1,52,700/- towards the account, they have not issued any demand notice till 06/08/2009. Considering the request of the petitioner to close the loan account after crediting the deposit amount towards the loan amount they have calculated his account and it was found that an amount of Rs.41,979/- was due towards the account as on 30/09/1999 even after crediting the deposit amount and interest accrued thereon. This matter was informed to the petitioner also. But the petitioner has not remitted the said amount or closed the account. Moreover the petitioner was also informed to close the account under the OTS Scheme through a demand notice but there was no response from the petitioner. Since the period of OTS Scheme was over, as on 31/12/2009, the account of the petitioner could not be closed as per the scheme now. As on 31/03/2010 an amount of Rs.3,68,876/- is due to them from the petitioner. All other allegations of the petitioner was denied as false and baseless. They have acted only as per the terms and conditions in the loan agreement and so there is no deficiency in service on their side as alleged. The petitioner is not entitled to get any of the reliefs sought for in the petition and hence prayed to dismiss the petition with their cost with a direction to the petitioner to remit the balance amount towards the loan account without delay as per the agreement.

The matters to be decided are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Reliefs and costs if any?

Evidence consists of the affidavits filed by both the parties, Ext. A1 to A3, B1 to B4 and deposition of PW1.

Point No. 1: According to the petitioner, though he had applied for Rs.2,00,000/- as loan amount, the opposite parties had sanctioned and paid only Rs.1,84,000/- towards that application. The opposite parties denied the said statement as not true or correct. They had sanctioned Rs.2,00,000/- as loan amount and had disbursed the said amount to the petitioner in 3 installments of Rs.80,000/- on 18/06/1998, Rs.80,000/- on 06/07/1998 and Rs.40,000/- on 07/08/1998 respectively. Out of Rs.2,00,000/- sanctioned, Rs.10,000/- was deducted as service charge and Rs.5,280/- as interest for the period beginning from the date of acceptance of the 2^nd instalment amount to the date of starting repayment as per Clause 8 of the loan agreement. The opposite party produced the copy of loan agreement and application to prove the same and was marked as Ext. B1. A perusal of Ext. B1 proved the statement of the opposite parties as true and correct. Clause 20 of Ext. B1 reads “The Mortgagor shall be bound by the terms of application form and the conditions attached thereto which shall form part of this deed as if they are incorporated in this deed.” Since the petitioner had signed the loan agreement and application form he is bound by the terms and conditions therein. So the allegation of the petitioner that the opposite party had sanctioned and paid only Rs.1,84,000/- towards his loan application was found not true or correct. The petitioner was cross examined by the opposite party as PW1. In cross the petitioner also had admitted this fact.

            The petitioner in his petition had stated that, he had remitted the 1^st loan installment on 10/09/1998, thereafter Rs.1,20,000/- on 14/06/1999 and Rs.30,000/- on 22/09/1999 towards the loan account. On remitting Rs.30,000/-, as told by the staff of the opposite party he demanded closure of his account after crediting the deposit amount of Rs.36,000/- with accrued interest towards that loan account and thus closed his account in the year 1999 itself. The opposite parties denied the said statement. According to them they have not closed the account as stated by the petitioner since there was dues pending. The petitioner has not produced any evidence in support of his said statement and to show that the loan account has been closed as stated. If the loan account was closed as stated then the opposite party will issue an account closure letter in this regard. But the petitioner has not produced any closure letter also.

            According to the opposite parties the loan was sanctioned for a period of 14 years. The amount is to be repaid in equi-monthly installments of Rs.2,700/- each for 168 months. As per Clause ‘6’ of Ext. B1 agreement, the interest for the loan is 18.25% per annum or such other higher as fixed by the Board from time to time and as per Clause ‘12’ of the agreement they can charge 20.75% interest per annum for the defaulted instalments. The petitioner was a defaulter in payments. They produced the account statement of the petitioner and was marked as Ext. B3. Ext. B3 shows that the petitioner was a defaulter in monthly payments as stated by the opposite parties. According to the opposite parties considering the request of the petitioner, for closing his account they had calculated the amount and it was found that an amount of Rs.41,979.35 is due to them towards that account as on 30/09/1999 after crediting the deposit amount of Rs.36,000/- and interest accrued thereon. This was informed to the petitioner also. But he has not remitted the said amount or closed the loan account. Ext. B3 proved the said contention of the opposite party that an amount of Rs.41,979.35 which includes the balance loan amount, penal interest, default interest etc. was due towards the loan account as on 30/09/1999 as true.

            Though the petitioner had stated in his petition that after closing the loan account, he and his wife approached the opposite parties many time demanding return of documents pledged, but the opposite parties has not returned the documents, but in cross examination, he admitted that he and his wife approached the opposite parties many times but that was for requesting further time for repayment. (page 2-PW1). This statement of the petitioner shows that he was aware of the fact that the loan account was not closed and that some amount was still pending due towards that account. According to the opposite parties the dues come up to Rs.1,85,933/-as on 31/08/2009. So for setting the account under OTS Scheme, which gives some deductions to the loanees for setting their accounts, they had issued notice to the petitioner dated 06/08/2009 demanding to remit Rs.1,16,006/- after deducting Rs.69,927/- from the total amount due and to close the account but the petitioner has not utilized that chance also. Since the period of OTS is over, they could not close the account under this scheme now. The reception of the said notice was admitted by the petitioner and he produced the said letter and was marked as Ext. A1.

It is to be noted that once an agreement is signed both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions thereon. As per Ext. B1 agreement, the opposite parties can charge penal interest and other charges on the defaulted payments. Here the petitioner had stated that, he has not received any loan closure letter from the opposite party. This itself shows that the loan account was not closed in the year 1999 as stated by the petitioner because some amount was due towards that account at that time. Moreover the petitioner has not produced any evidence to disprove the account statements Ext. B3 and B4 produced and marked by the opposite parties. At the time when he requested the opposite party to close his account after crediting the deposit amount of Rs.36,000/-, the petitioner ought to have enquired about the status of the account, whether it can be closed by crediting that amount also towards that account, or any balance remains. If the account can be closed, then the opposite party will close the account and issued a loan closure letter, and if not, the opposite party will inform that matter also. If the petitioner had any doubt with regard to the calculation of the amount, that also can be cleared at that time by talking with the staff of the opposite party or consulting with an accountant based on the terms of the loan agreement. If he had done so, then he could have get a clear picture of the status of the account at that time. But here nothing has been done by the petitioner in this regard. This can only be treated as negligence on his part. The law cannot help such persons who are negligent in their activities.

So, considering the facts stated and evidence on record, it is found that the opposite parties had acted as per the terms and conditions in Ext. B1 agreement. So we cannot attribute any deficiency in service on the opposite parties as alleged by the petitioner. Point No. 1 found accordingly.

Point No. 2: In view of the finding in Point No. 1, this petition is liable to be dismissed and the petitioner is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the petition.

In the result, this petition is dismissed. Parties will bear their costs.

Dated this the 23^rd day of October, 2018

Date of filing: 07/01/2010

SD/-MEMBER                           SD/-PRESIDENT                 SD/-MEMBER

 APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Copy of notice received from 1^st opposite party

A2. Copy of lawyer notice sent to 1^st opposite party

A3. Reply notice received from 1^st opposite party

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

B1. Agreement

B2. Application form

B3. Copy of ledger

B4. Remittance particulars

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1. Abdurahiman (Complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party:

None                                                           

Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT