DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Consumer Complaint Case No: 340 of 2011] -------------------------------- Date of Institution : 29.07.2011 Date of Decision : 31.07.2012 -------------------------------- [1] Shri Nirmal Krishan Khosla; [2] Shri Manu Khosla; [3] Shri Rashim Khosla; [4] Sh. Vaneet Khosla; [5] Sh. Vimal Khosla; [6] Smt.Madhu Khosla; rs/o H.No.1274, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh. ---Complainants VERSUS [1] ICICI Home Finance Company Limited, ICICI HFC, SCO No. 174-175, Second Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager. [2] ICICI Bank, Manimajra, U.T. Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager. ---Opposite Parties BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: None for Complainants. Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for Opposite Parties. PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER 1. Complainants have filed the present complaint, against the Opposite Parties, on the grounds that, the Complainants approached the Opposite Parties for availing home loan to the tune of Rs.1.40 crore subject to the terms and conditions enshrined in Sanction letter dated 14/2/2005. Complainants even opened a loan account bearing No. (LAN) LBCHD 00001006588 (Annexure C-1). The said loan was granted for a term of 180 months (15 years) at a floating rate of interest. The Opposite Parties floating reference rate (FRR) at the time of sanctioning of the loan was 7.25%. However, immediately, thereafter i.e. on 16/6/2005, Complainants received a letter informing them about the increase in the FRR value by .50% effective from the date of the letter. After fresh adjustment, the interest rate was fixed at 7.75%. A copy of the letter dated 16/6/2005 is annexed at Annexure C-2. After the new adjustments in rate of interest, the EMI was fixed at 79296/- p.m. with effect from July, 2005. The Complainants also furnished fresh set of post-dated cheques to facilitate the payment of EMIs accordingly. Thereafter, on 13/2/2006, the Opposite Parties once again effected any increase by 0.50% in the rate of interest and the next reset date was fixed from April 2006. Thus, the new applicable rate of interest reached 8.25%. Copy of the said letter is at Annexure C-5 with the complaint. A fresh set of post-dated cheques were once again handed over to the Opposite Parties. The Complainants finding it difficult to match the re-payment liabilities at the prevailing rate of interest applicable to them desired for foreclosure and requested the foreclosure statement from the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party No.1 through its letter dated 22/7/2008 is claimed to have wrongly charged the foreclosure charges at the rate of 2.25% at outstanding principal and thereby desired the Complainants to make a payment of Rs.1,16,43,082/- in order to settle the account of the Complainants. A copy of the letter is attached at Annexure C-8. The Complainants claimed that the entire loan was paid back and the same is reflected in a certificate issued by Opposite Party No.1 vide its letter dated 31 July, 2008. Complainants aggrieved of the charge of foreclosure charges @2.25% made a representation to the Opposite Parties to refund the excess amount of Rs.2,76,255/-, but not finding any favourable response, from that quarter, served a legal notice, dated 3/3/2010, and thereafter, on Opposite Parties not having replied to the legal notice, has filed the present consumer complaint seeking the relief of refund of Rs.2,76,255/-, along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental and physical harassment, besides Rs.5500/- towards costs of litigation. The complaint of the complainants is duly supported by a detailed affidavit of the Complainants. 2. The Opposite Parties have contested the claim of the complainant by filing their joint reply, taking preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint is time barred, as the cause of action alleged by the Complainants has actually accrued against the Opposite Parties in July, 2008, and the present complaint having been filed in February 2011, is barred by limitation, as per Section 24-B of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The reply/ version of the Opposite Parties is neither verified, nor supported by an affidavit of the Opposite Parties. On merits, the Opposite Parties have repeated their preliminary objections, while replying to the each averments of the present complaint, in their para-wise reply. 3. It is important to mention that on the concluding day i.e. 26.7.2012, when the case was fixed for arguments, none appeared on behalf of the Complainant. Hence, the present complaint was proceeded to be disposed off on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection rules, 1987 read with Section 13[2] of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date). 4. Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Parties, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the learned counsels for the opposite parties, we have come to the following conclusions. 5. It would be very much just and fair if without going into the merits of the present complaint, the very first objection of the Opposite Parties with regard to the limitation of the present complaint being time barred is dealt with. Even though the reply of the Opposite Parties is not in consonance with law, as it is neither verified, nor is supported a detailed affidavit, which is very much necessary, to be considered, as a valid evidence, in support of their reply. 6. The Complainants in their present complaint have themselves highlighted in Para No. 14 (Pg.4) that the first cause of action towards the Opposite Parties arose on 22 July, 2008, and thereafter, after approaching the Opposite Parties the second cause of action according to them arose on 28/8/2008 when the Opposite Parties declined the refund of the foreclosure charges amounting to Rs.2,76,255/-. Though Complainants claim that the final cause of action arose on 3/3/2010, when a legal notice of the even date was served upon the Opposite Parties by the Complainants. 7. We feel that the actual cause of action against the Opposite Parties had arose in favour of the Complainants on the communication dated 28/8/2008, through which the Opposite Parties had actually refused to entertain their request of refund of foreclosure charges. The Complainants preferred not to take cudgels against the Opposite Parties within a reasonable time and that too within the limitation period of two years, as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, we also feel that no cause of action can be created through belated communications and in the present case, the legal notice dated 3/3/2010. 8. In these circumstances, we feel that the present complaint is time barred. We prefer to dismiss the same on this score alone. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 9. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 31st July, 2012Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER ‘Dutt
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
