CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.346/2008
SH. N. RAJAPPAN
S/O LATE SH. NARAIN
R/O FLAT NO.262 (GF) POCKET-II,
SECTOR NO.121, DWARKA, NEW DELHI
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- THE ASSOCIATES INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,
3 – LOCAL SHOPPING COMPLEX,
PUSHP VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110062
- THE MANAGER,
CITI FINANCIAL CONSUMER FINANCE INDIA LTD.
BRANCH 3, PUSHP VIHAR,
MADANGIR LOCAL SHOPPING COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI-110062
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order: 09.01.2019
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of the complainant is that he took a Home Equity Loan to the tune of Rs.8 lakhs from OP-1 on 07.11.2000 for a period of 120 months having EMI of Rs.15,727/- payable w.e.f. 20.12.000. The complainant paid EMI till February 2008. It is stated that the rate of interest on such loan was reduced from March 2001 by the Competent Authority i.e. Reserve Bank of India but OP-1 implemented the same with effect from February 2004 by reducing the amount of EMI from Rs.15,727/- to Rs.12,700/-. The complainant wrote a letter dated 20.11.2001 to OP-1 in the context of reducing the rate of interest at the prevailing rate of interest as applicable to all private and government institution as per direction of Reserve Bank of India, which was acceded from February 2004 by way of reducing the EMI amount.
It is stated that the complainant is running business at Ludhiana so the repayment of loan was made at Ludhiana branch of OP-2 on the request letter dated 13.12.2001. As against loan of amount of Rs.8 lakhs, the complainant has paid total amount of Rs.12,74,338/- upto February 2008. The complainant vide letter dated 12.03.2008 informed OP-2 about his inability to pay the EMI due to financial crisis and desired to settle the said Home Equity Loan sanctioned in November, 2000 and EMI paid upto February, 2008 with OP-2. In reply to this letter, OP vide email dated 09.04.2008 raised demand of Rewrite Amount Rs.5,04,773/- for a period of 136 months having new EMI of Rs.6,499 @ 11% which is glaring example of blatant deficiency. The complainant replied the said email of OP dated 09.04.2008 with strong protest and deferred for making the amicable settlement of the payment of reasonable and actual amount against the said Home Equity Loan. Terming the action of OP as deficiency in service, the present complaint has been filed whereby the complainant has prayed that OP be directed to reduce the EMI w.e.f. March 2001 instead of February 2004 and to adjust the excess amount against the remaining outstanding dues of the said loan; and also pay compensation and litigation expenses.
OP in reply took the plea that the issue as to whether the rate of interest being charged by OP is excessive or not is beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act as held in the matters reported as Venkatanarayanan Vs. The Manager, LIC of India & Another. III (1995) CPJ 67 and Ganesh Mahal Vs The Manager, Karnataka Bank Ltd. III (1995) CPJ 432. It is further stated that the loan amount has been closed and now there is no relationship between the parries. All the allegations made in the complaint are denied. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
We have gone through the case file carefully.
It is significant to note that the present complaint was filed on 12.05.2008. During the pendency of the present complaint, the matter was settled and OP wrote a letter dated 04.06.2008 to the complainant wherein it is clearly stated that taking all factors into consideration, they are ready to settle the account for an amount of Rs.4,84,000/- out of which amount of Rs.3 lakhs was to be paid on 05.06.2008, amount of Rs.1 lakh was to be paid on 30.06.2008, amount of Rs.42,000/- was to be paid on 30.07.2008 and amount of Rs.42,000/- was to be paid on 30.08.2008. It is clearly stated that this a one-time settlement offer and once the payment is received this account will be closed.
Pursuance to this settlement, the complainant the made the entire payment and vide letter dated 20.01.2009, OP informed paymet and vide lette dated 20.01.2009 the OP bank informed the complainant that the loan amount stands closed. While making the repayment, the complainant has stated that ‘he is making this payment under protest’.
We failed to understand the significance of the words that ‘he is making the payment under protest’. The bank has clearly wrote a letter to the complainant that taking all factors into consideration they are ready to settle the loan for an amount of Rs.4,84,000/- and this was accepted by the complainant and he made the payment . If the settlement was not acceptable to the complainant, he should not have made the payment. Simply writing that ‘he is making the payment under protest’ will not do anything. Once the payment has been made as per the settlement and the loan amount stands closed, no cause of action survives. The complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(H.C. SURI) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
