DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 644
Instituted on: 04.12.2017
Decided on: 27 .07.2018
Dajinder Kumar Garg son of Tara Chand, resident of H.No.131, Aggarwal Street No.1, Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Shahi Finance Limited, Authorised D.S.A. of LIC Housing Finance Ltd Office through its Assistant now, Authorized DSA of LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Office Situated at SCF, 209, Kaula Park, Near Harman Sweets, Sangrur.
2. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. office through its Branch Manager, situated at SCO-127, 1st Floor, above Bharat Sanitary Store, Chotti Baradari, Patiala 147001.
…Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri Neeraj Kalra, Adv.
For OP No.2 : Shri Mohinder Ahuja, Adv.
Quorum: Sarita Garg, Presiding Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sarita Garg, Presiding Member.
1. Shri Dajinder Kumar Garg, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 9.6.2005, the complainant took a house loan of Rs.5 Lacs and the EMI was Rs.5410/- for the term of 12 years on floating rate basis. Further case of the complainant is that the EMI of the complainant was increased from time to time without any intimation to the complainant. Further case of the complainant is that on 20.3.2017, when the complainant took his account statement and summary of his loan account after 11 years and 10 months to know the status of the loan account, then he found that an amount of Rs.1,73,065/- (Rs.1,161,493/- as principal amount and Rs.11572/- as interest) was outstanding against the complainant, as such, the complainant approached the OPs and requested that he has paid whole of the instalments, but still an amount of Rs.1,73,065/- is standing outstanding, which is said to be wrong and illegal and requested the Ops to waive the same and return the original sale deed to the complainant, but of no avail. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to close the loan account and release the sale deed of the property and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by the OP number 2, it is admitted that the OP number 2 gave a loan offer letter for sanction of Rs.5.00 Lacs on 9.6.2005 at the rate of interest at 8% per annum, which was repayable in 144 monthly instalments and the rate of interest was on floating basis. It has been denied that the complainant has been regularly depositing the monthly instalments. It is further stated that whenever the rate of interest was increased, the monthly instalment was increased as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, so it is denied that any excessive amount was recovered from the complainant. It is further averred that an amount of Rs.1,73,065/- towards principal and interst is outstanding against the complainant. Lastly. The OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-`9 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/9 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.
4. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.
5. At the outset, it is not in dispute between the parties that the complainant had obtained a house loan of Rs.5 Lacs on 09.06.2005 which was returnable in 12 years in 144 equal instalments. It is also admitted that the instalment of the loan was revised from time to time as the interest rate was on floating rate basis, which fact is also admitted and has been averred in the complaint himself. It is made clear that where floating rate of interest is applicable, the amount of instalment goes up and down as in the present case. Now, we have perused the relief part of the complainant, where he has sought that the loan account of the complainant be closed and sale deed of the property be returned to the complainant apart from compensation and litigation expenses, but we failed to understand that why the complainant did not clearly mention the amount of excess amount, if any. There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not mention the excess amount so recovered from the complainant. It is further worth mentioning here that the loan account is still in running position and has not over by now and the OPs are showing due amount against the complainant. On the other hand, it is clearly mentioned in the written reply that the amount of the loan instalment and loan term has been increased in view of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement as the rate of interest was on ‘floater basis’ and not on ‘fixed basis’. Further to support this contention that the interest rate is floater basis is evident from the copy of the loan offer letter Ex.C/3. In the circumstances, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops in increasing the amount of instalment from time to time.
6. In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and as such, the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
7. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
July 27, 2018.
(Sarita Garg)
Presiding Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
