Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/50

Kapil Kishore Dutta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Kumar Adv.

02 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:50 dated 02.02.2021                                                 Date of decision: 02.11.2022.

 

Kapil Kishore Dutta aged 40 years s/o Sh.Kiran Kishore Dutta r/o House No.1115, St. No.L-4, Jethi Nagar, Malerkotla Road, Khanna.                                                                                                           ..…Complainant

 

1.Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd., TCHFL, Ground Floor, SCO-143, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.

2.Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd., TCHFL, Second Floor, SCO-20, Sector 26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its authorized signatory.

3.Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd., Head Office at TCHFL, First & Ground Floor, B-36, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-110021, through its authorized signatory.                                                                                                                                                                                  …..Opposite parties

 

     Complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.Vishal Kumar Dua, Advocate

For OPs                         :         Sh.Hardev Singh Batra, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he availed the housing loan facility from the OPs vide loan account No.9925574. As the complainant was facing the financial crisis, he sold out his property to clear the outstanding of the housing loan amount availed from the OPs. The complainant paid all the EMIs in advance and also paid the full amount of Rs.8 lacs through cheque and Rs.4,95,000/- through RTGS. The complainant further deposited Rs.1 lac in the month of May 2019. However, despite this, the OPs charged Rs.51,594/- from the complainant on account of interest which they were not entitled to as the complainant had cleared the entire loan amount in advance. The complainant requested the OPs to return the said amount of Rs.51,594/- but to no avail. Even a legal notice dated 17.07.2020 served upon the OPs failed to evoke a positive response from them. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the overcharged amount of Rs.51,594/- with interest along with compensation of Rs.1 lac on account of mental and physical harassment.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of OP1 to OP2, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and deserves to be out-rightly dismissed. According to the OPs, the loan was sanctioned and disbursed on the request of the complainant against mortgage of his property and all the documents were duly signed and executed by the complainant. The loan was secured by way of mortgage of the immovable property as security by deposit of title deed. The OPs have further denied if any amount on account of interest was unduly charged. According to the OPs, it is clear from the statement of account Ex.OP3 that there was irregularity in payment of EMIs from 12.12.2018 onwards. Therefore, it cannot be said that the interest of Rs.51,594/- has been wrongly charged from the complainant. As a matter of fact, the complainant was liable to pay the interest till the date of closure of the loan and the amount in question has been charged in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, counsel for the complainant submitted affidavit Ex.CA of complainant no.1 along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the OPs submitted affidavit Ex.OP1 of Sh.Maninderpal Singh, Authorized person of OPs along with documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records along with written arguments submitted by the parties.

6.                In this case, the grievance of the complainant is that a sum of Rs.51,594/- was wrongly charged from the complainant on account of interest which was not due as the complainant cleared the loan amount by way of paying Rs.8 lacs through cheque, Rs.4,95,000/- through RTGS and Rs.1 lac in cash in the month of May 2019. On the contrary, the plea raised by the OPs is that the interest has been charged by the OPs in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and besides that there has been irregularity in payment of EMIs by the complainant.

7.                In the complaint, the complainant has not specified as to how much amount was borrowed by him from the Ops as housing loan. Even the date of disbursement of the loan has not been mentioned in the complaint. It has simply been claimed that the loan amount was cleared of in advance in the month of May 2019. However, from the perusal of statement of account Ex.C10, it becomes evident that the sanctioned amount of the loan is Rs.16,24,000/- and the loan was disbursed on 27.04.2017. The applicable rate of interest was 12.25%. The loan was repayable in 180 installments of Rs.18,765/- each. It is further evident from the statement of account Ex.C10 that disbursement of the loan was completed on 25.05.2017. It is further evident from the statement of account Ex.C10 that the complainant paid the amount by way of cheques for an amount of Rs.7,99,300/- on 19.11.2019 and Rs.4,92,034/- on 22.10.2019 while the amount of Rs.99,050/- was paid through cash on 29.05.2019. Perusal of statement of account Ex.C10 further reveals that from 27.04.2017 onwards, there has been irregularity in payment of installments on many occasions. Therefore, as the EMIs were not cleared in time on many occasions with the result that cheque bouncing charges of Rs.700/- each were imposed on 12.12.2018, 10.01.2019, 12.02.2019, 13.03.2019, 10.04.2019, 12.06.2019, 10.07.2019, 10.08.2019, 09.09.2019, 09.10.2019, 12.11.2019 and 09.12.2019. All these facts have not been candidly disclosed by the complainant while filing this complaint that he has not been diligent and regular in payment of EMIs. The complainant has not been able to point out as how the amount of Rs.51,594/- has been illegally charged as interest by the OPs. Therefore, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that an amount of Rs.51,594/- was wrongly or illegally charged by the OPs from the complainant on account of interest. Therefore, no case of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs is made out.

8.                           As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

9.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within the statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.11.2022.

Gurpreet Sharma