Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/333/2021

Sanjay S/o Om Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram City - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Chaudhary

09 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.333 of 2022

                                                     Date of institution: 27.10.2021.                                                             

                                                     Date of decision:09.03.2022                                                      

                         

Sanjay son of Shri Om Parkash, resident of Bharat Majdoor Bhaba Ladwa,
Tehsil Ladwa, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                …Complainant.

                        Versus

1.Shriram City Union Finance Limited, regd.office 123, AngappaNaicken Street, Chennai 600 011 through its Managing Director.

2. Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Sector -17, Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.

3.Himanshu Madan, Recovery Agent, Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Sector 17, Kurukshetra mobile No.94662-d94190 resident of village Ban, Teshil Ladwa, District Kurukshetra.                       ….Opposite parties.

               

                Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh.  Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

       

Present:     None for  Advocate for the complainant.

                Sh.Shekhar Kapoor Advocate for the Ops.

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been moved by Sanjay against Shriram City Union Finance  etc.-Opposite Parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant applied for housing loan with the Ops and the OP transferred the amount of Rs.4,82,472/- in the account NO.50225895062 in  Allahabad Bank of the complainant.  The original deed of transfer of immoveable property within the blood relation bearing No.1363 dated 18.10.2016 was hypothecated by the complainant with the Ops as security of payment of the said loan. It is further submitted that the complainant has paid the total loan amount to the Ops but the complainant was shocked to receive a letter dated 29.9.2021 from the Ops in which they have alleged that a sum of Rs.5,60,844/- is due against the complainant and  as such the said letter is forged and fabricated one as mandatory items like principal loan amount, principal balance, interest, misc expenses, details of mortgage have not been mentioned which amounts to deficiency in services  on the part of the Ops.

3.             Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  It is submitted that5 upon the request of the complainant and on the basis of information provided by the complainant in the proposal form, Ops advanced the loan  to  the complainant and co borrower vide agreement No.CDKURTF1611300003 dated 30.11.2016 of Rs.5.00 lacs and the complainant had to  repay the monthly installments of Rs.14583/- each from 10.1.2017 to 10.12.2021. The complainant agreed to abide by all the terms and conditions of the agreement. The loan was to be paid in 60 monthly installments. The complainant did not pay the same so under the constraint circumstances and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the OP can took the possession of the mortgaged property. On that a letter vide dated 29.9.2021 for nomination as arbitrator to adjudicate  the claim/dispute under the agreement initiated by the Ops.  The complainant is liable to pay the loan amount as per loan statement. The complainant is facing the present   situation due to his own defaults. There is no deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of answering Ops. Thus, it is stated that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.             The complainant in support of his case has filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed his evidence.

5.             On the other hand, Ops in support of their case have filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and   tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-8 and closed  their evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the Ops and have perused the case file. However, after calling the case several times none has appeared on behalf of the complainant.

7.             The learned counsel for the Ops while reiterating the submissions made in the  written statement has argued that the complainant had obtained the loan of Rs.5.00 lacs and he had to repay the same in 60 installments of Rs.14583/- each.. He has not made the payment of installments since two years.  Charges for cheque bounce and penalty has been levied upon the complainant for not maintaining the financial discipline. Notice Ex.R-6 has been issued to the complainant for payment of the loan amount alongwith  cheque bounce charges and penalty and as such the complainant defaulted in the loan amount payments and there is no deficiency in services on the  part of the complainant.

8.             A perusal of the file shows that the complainant had obtained the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- as shown in the statement of account Ex.C-5.  The complainant had to repay the said loan amount in the 60 installments of Rs.14583/- each. Statement of account as well as Letter of reference  cum nomination  Ex.R-7 shows that the complainant is yet to pay Rs.5,60,844/- to the Ops.  Further letter Ex.R-6 dated 14.8.2021 shows that the balance of principal amount of Rs.3,04483/- remains unpaid. It  also shows that the complainant has not made the payment of installments since last two years as shown in the letter Ex.R-6. Besides this amount, amount of Rs.1,06,926/- remains as interest to be paid and Rs.45166/- remains as fee of the Bank. Thus,  amount of Rs.4,56,575/- remains to be paid by the complainant to the Ops vide letter dated 14.8.2021 Ex.R-6. The complainant filed the present complaint and failed to disclose as to how the excess amount has been  claimed by the Ops.  A perusal of the file shows that the  complainant has failed to maintain  financial discipline qua his loan account and further failed to appear and contest his case. Statement of account Ex.R-8 shows that as on 9.12.2021 a sum of Rs.5,57,414/- remains to be paid by the complainant.

9.             Today, the case was fixed for arguments. But neither the complainant nor his counsel has appeared before this Commission. As discussed above, the complainant has failed to maintain the financial discipline and as per the statement of account Ex.R-8, the complainant is yet to pay the sum of Rs.5,57,414/- to the bank and has failed to appear before this commission to rebut the contentions raised by the Ops. Therefore, version put forwarded by the Ops goes completely unrebutted and unchallenged and therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant fails and the same deserves to be dismissed as no deficiency or unfair trade practice is found on the part of the Ops.

 

10.            In view of our above discussion and findings, we dismiss the present complaint without any relief to the complainant. A certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per the rules and the file  be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open Commission.

Dated: 09.03.2022.                                              President.

 

                                Member             Member.