Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/666/2014

Ashish Mohan Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Standard Chartered Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

P.K. Kukreja

13 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/666/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	07/10/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	13/07/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Ashish Mohan Gupta son of Late Sh. C.M. Gupta, Plot No.09, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

(1)  Standard Chartered Bank Limited, Home Loan, Customer Care Unit, PO Box 8888, Chennai, India, through its Incharge.

 

(2)  Standard Chartered Bank Limited, through its Incharge, SCO No.137-138, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

MRS. SURJEET KAUR           MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate.
For OPs	:	Sh. Sourabh Bindra, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          The facts which are necessary for the adjudication of the present Complaint are conceptualized hereinafter. The Complainant availed a housing loan of Rs.5.00 crores from the Opposite Parties (Agreement Ex. C-1). The Complainant delivered his property papers of House No.88, Sector 8, Chandigarh for creating equitable mortgage of the said property in favour of the Opposite Parties and in turn the Opposite Parties disbursed Rs.49,027,449.56P (less Rs.972550.44P). It has been alleged that the installments were to be fixed on the amount of Rs.49,027,449.56P whereas the higher rate of interest was charged from the Complainant over the amount of Rs.9,72,550.44P (Statement of Account Ex.C-3). It has been further alleged that on monthly basis the Opposite Parties were forcing the Complainant to pay the advance installment instead of collecting the same on the due date (Statement of Account Ex.C-2). Under these circumstances, the Complainant enquired the process of foreclosure of the loan from the Opposite Parties, which was intimated vide letter dated 23.5.2009 (Ex.C-4). It has been also alleged that ignoring the instructions of the RBI that the Banks will not be permitted to charge foreclosure charge/pre-payment penalties on home loan, the Opposite Parties started demanding foreclosure penalty amount @4.49% over the foreclosure amount. Guided with the said instructions, the Complainant preferred to pay Rs.1.00 crore out of outstanding amount of Rs.4,41,81,388.75P and thereby balance amount remained to the tune of Rs.3,41,81,388.75P as on 21.07.2012. Ultimately, the Opposite Parties reverted back to the Complainant vide letter dated 14.09.2012 (Ex.C-6) and intimated him that it was LARP account in which pre-payment upto 90% may be made without any charges. In view of the unlawful acts of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant was interested for the foreclosure of the loan account and not for the pre-payment. The Opposite Parties failed to give any response to the communications of the Complainant for grant of permission to foreclose the account. The Complainant even sent Cheques dated 22.08.2012 and 22.09.2012 towards the full closure of the loan account. However, the Opposite Party No.2 refused to accept the same (Ex.C-7 to C-9). Ultimately, the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 27.09.2012 (Ex.C-10) demanded Rs.3,55,50,716.80P towards the full and final payment. The amount of Rs.19,45,171.53P were wrongly demanded under the heading of pre-payment charges and Rs.2,83,239.59P were further wrongly demanded as interest for the month of September, 2012. It has been further alleged that the Opposite Parties failed to correct the accounts despite raising protest by the Complainant. The Complainant was in need of the property papers, so under the compelling circumstances, he paid a sum of Rs.3550716.80 vide letter dated 28.09.2012 (Ex.C-11), under protest. In view of the protest of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties marginally reduced the amount of Rs.3550716.80P to Rs.35,007,303.61P. Alleging that the Opposite Parties have charged the above said amount against the applicable laws and instructions of RBI Hence, the Complainant has preferred the present Consumer Complaint before this Forum u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Parties, in their written version, admitted that the Complainant had approached them for availing loan against his property wherein he had offered his residential house bearing no.88, Sector 8, Chandigarh as security. Based on the application form duly signed by the Complainant, the answering Opposite Parties sanctioned and provided loan against residential property “LARP” and had opened his loan account on June 01, 2009 bearing account no. 47788984 (Ex.R-1 to R-3). At the time of having loan facility, the Complainant had opted for variable interest on his loan account. It has been submitted that total loan amount of Rs.5,00,00,000/- was sanctioned out of which the amount of Rs.4,98,62,125/- had been disbursed after deducting Rs.1,37,875/- towards processing fee. As per the agreement, duly signed by the Complainant, he was intimated that his first EMI would commence on 18.06.2009 and he has accepted the same. The first EMI was deducted on 18.6.2009 wherein an amount of Rs.3,06,944.44P was deducted towards the interest portion and the amount of Rs.3,58,661.56P towards the principal portion. It has been urged that the Complainant is disputing the transactions happened in the year 2009 therefore same cannot be entertained being time barred and the Complaint filed by the Complainant deserves dismissal. As per circular dated June 05, 2012, the non-applicability of pre-closure charges applies only to the loans sanctioned under the ‘Home Loan’ category (Ex.R-5). However, the Complainant’s loan in dispute has been issued under the ‘Loan Against Property’. The fact that the pre-closure charges would be applicable is also mentioned under clause 10 of the sanction letter and clause 2.8 of the agreement. Hence, in accordance to the above, the pre-closure charges stand applicable and the Pre-termination Quotation (PTQ) had been issued with the applicable charges. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties have been controverted.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides.

 

 

7.     Before determining any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties, it would be just & proper to deal with the issue as to whether this Forum has got pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint or not?

 

8.     Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that in the light of the material on record, answer to the question posed has to be in negative.

 

9.     Section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stipulates as under:-

 

“11. Jurisdiction of the District Forum:

(1)  Subject to other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the Compensation if any, claimed [does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs].”

 

 

10.     In the relief clause, among other reliefs, the Complainant has sought the following directions:-

 

a)   To treat Rs.9,72,550.44 (Rs.Nine lacs seventy two thousand five hundred and paisa forty four only) received in the month of June, 2009 towards the principal amount, prepare another statement of accounts and pay excess amount received from the Complainant with interest @18% per annum from the date of receipt of the amount from the Complainant till date of actual realization of the amount by the OPs to the Complainant.

 

b)   To pay Rs.14,96,171.53 (Fourteen lacs ninety six thousand one hundred seventy one and paisa fifty three only) to the Complainant with interest @18% from 28.09.2012 and further pay Rs.1,88,826.40 (Rs. One lac eighty eight thousand eight hundred twenty six and paisa forty thousand only) to the Complainant from 28.09.12 till actual realization of the amount to the Complainant. The said amounts of Rs.16,84,997.93 (Rs.Sixteen lacs eighty four thousand nine hundred ninety seven and paisa ninety three only) were not payable by the Complainant to the OPs.

 

d)   To pay compensation to the Complainant to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lacs).

 

e)   To pay the cost of unnecessary litigation costs amounting to Rs.22,000/- of this Complaint to the Complainant.

 

 

11.     It is observed that in the prayer clause (a) the Complainant has sought a direction to the Opposite Parties to treat Rs.9,72,550.44 received in the month of June, 2009 towards the principal amount and to pay excess amount received from the Complainant along with interest @18% per annum, which comes to Rs.15,12,550/- (Rs.9,72,550 + Rs.5,40,000/- as int. w.e.f. June, 2009). Further, in the prayer clause (b) the directions sought are to pay Rs.14,96,171.53 along with interest @18% from 28.09.2012, which comes to Rs.20,36,171/- (Rs.14,96,171.53P + Rs.5,40,000/- as int.). Besides this, the Complainant has also claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.22,000/- towards costs of litigation. In this manner, it evident that the total relief sought for by the Complainant comes to Rs.37,70,721/-, which certainly exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction limit of this Forum, which is upto Rs.20.00 lacs only.   

 

12.      We opine that since this Forum is having a pecuniary jurisdiction upto the limit of Rs.20.00 lacs only, it cannot, by any means or way, grant any relief exceeding its pecuniary limitation nor the same would be legal or justified in the eyes of law and in consonance with statute. In this view of the matter, the complaint is held to be not maintainable before this forum being beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction.

 

13.      In the light of the above observations, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is barred by pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore, this complaint, being not maintainable, is dismissed with no order as to cost. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate authority or Court for redressal of his grievance.

 

14.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

13^th July, 2015                                       

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

 

           Sd/-              

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

“Dutt”                                                                                            MEMBER