Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of the complaint are that the complainant has taken in May 2015, home loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- (fifteen lakh rupees) only from the OP No. 1 bearing loan a/c No. 211400001965 and the EMI has been fixed at Rs. 14,396/- @ 9.9% interest for the first 02 years and thereafter at variable rate as per market index. The said EMI is deductable from the savings Bank a/c of the complainant bearing NO. 30759977739 maintained with OP No.2.
Naturally in May, 2017, first 02-year of loan was completed and in June 2017, when the complainant met the OP No. 1 it was brought to his knowledge that EMI for June 2017 could not be deducted as ECS Mandate from OP No.2 was not received. As such the complainant is liable to pay a fine for such non-payment of EMI.
The complainant, however, refused to pay fine as the complainant had sufficient balance at that time but paid only the EMI amount for June, 2017. The complainant requested the OP No.1 to take the plotting charge which is payable after first two (2) years of taking loan but the OP No.1 d9id not receive the same for some technical reason or other.
Till July 2017, EMI @ Rs. 14396/- had been deducted and
the rate of interest had also been same. But from Aug, 2017, OP No.1 started to deduct EMI @ Rs. 14870/- (i.e. by an increase of Rs. 474/-) and that also at the rate of 11.5% interest (i.e. by an increase of 1.6%) without any intimation to the complainant.
In September 2017, the complainant paid the fine of Rs. 2,207/- for non-payment of EMI for June 2017 at due time but later.
In May, 2018 the complainant came home and met the OP No. 1 who asked him to pay the aforesaid plotting charge of Rs. 11,800/- plus EMI for April & May 2018. The complainant paid by cheque a sum of Rs. 11,800+(14,870×2)= 41,540/- to the OP No.1.
No change in the EMI amount but the tenure of the loan is reduced from 20 years to 18 years. However, on 29.10.2018, the amount of fine of Rs. 2,207/- paid by the complainant in September, 2017 was refunded by transfer credit through ECS system to the S.B. Account of the complainant. Also from November, 2018, the rate of interest was reduced to 9% from 11.5% as per market index.
The OP No. 1 received the summon on 04.03.2019 but did not appear either personally or through authorized representative. So, on the expiry of the statutory period for filing written version, i.e. on 17.04.2019, the case proceeded ex-parte against the OP No.1. As per record available in the case file it is seen that the OP No.2 received summon on 02.03.2019 and entered appearance on 14.03.2019 but prayed for time to file written version. Such prayer was allowed and time was accordingly granted. But the OP No.2 did not avail itself of this opportunity granted by this Forum within the statutory period provided u/s 13(a) of the C.P. Act, and the case proceed ex-parte against OP No. 2 also.
To Prove his case complainant has filed the following documents:-
- Identity Card No. 36267 issued by the S.S.B.
- Loan a/c statement dtd. 29.10.2018 from 10/2014 to 10/2018 issued by the OP No.1,
- Savings Bank a/c pass-book issued by the OP No.2,
- Letter dtd. 30.12.2017 sent by the OP No. 1 addressed to the complainant informing that the payment towards loan installment dtd. 05.06.2017 has been dishonoured due to non-receipt of ECS Mandate,
- Letter of the complainant addressed to the OP No.2 informing non-deduction of loan installment in spite of sufficient balance and requesting to look into the matter,
- Statement dtd. 29.10.2018 of the OP No.1 intimating the refund of fine amount,
- Loan payment schedule/details dtd. 20.05.2015, 20.03.2017 and 08.08.2017 issued by OP No.1 to the complainant from 05.06.2015 to 05.07.2018.
On the basis of the above discussion, the following points come up for determination.
- Whether the complainant as a loan a/c holder/Savings Bank a/c holder is a consumer or not?
- Whether there had been any deficiency?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?
DECISION WITH REASONS.
Point No. 1 at first and then point No. 2 & 3, together, for the sake of brevity, are taken up for discussion.
Point No. 1.
Consumer means as per Section 2(d) of the C.P. Act, any person (i) who buys any goods for a consideration and includes any user of such goods and (ii) who hires or avails of any services for a consideration and includes any beneficiary of such services. The complainant is a loanee of the OP No.1. For such loan, the complainant is liable to pay interest, plotting charge and other fees to the OP-LIC Housing Finance Ltd.. Providing of loan by the OP No.1 is a service to be rendered to the loanee-customer at the consideration of interest and other charges payable to the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. (providing such service). Hence complainant loan a/c holder is a consumer of the OP No.1.
Service is defined in Section 2 (o) of the said Act, as services of any description which is made available to potential user and includes the provision of facilities in c/w Banking financing, Insurance etc. The complainant is a savings Bank a/c holder of the OP No.2 availing himself of provision of Banking facility. It is this a/c, of holder, maintained with OP No.2 from which the EMI was to be deducted through the process of ECS. Thus viewed the complainant is a consumer of the OP No.2 also.
Thus the point NO. 1 is answered in positive in favour of the complainant.
Point No. 2 & 3.
The OP No. 1 admitted by their letter dtd. 30.12.2017 to the complainant that the payment made towards loan installment dtd. 05.06.2017 has been dishonoured because the ECS mandate was not received but demanded necessary payments along with additional interest from 06/2017 till the date of payment plus cheque/ECS handling charges. Complainant had to pay Rs. 2207/- in Sept, 2017. The complainant however, submitted an application to the OP No.1 complaining that ECS was not deducted in spite of having sufficient balance in his savings a/c and requesting to look into the matter of additional interest charged for no fault of him. The a/c holder made a similar complaint to the OP No.2 also who in turn, confirmed on 19.07.2018 the sufficient balance as on 05.06.2017 but made it clear that Bank (OP No.2) is not liable for bouncing of ECS as the ECS mandate is maintained by the OP LIC Housing Finance Ltd. The complainant’s grievance was, however, redressed and the OP No.1 refunded on 29.10.2018 the sum of Rs. 2,207/- by transfer credit through ECS, system to the savings a/c of the complainant.
The complainant have alleged that the OP-1 suddenly increased from Aug, 2017 the rate of interest to 11.5% from 9.9% without any communication to him. This allegation is not acceptable in as much as the complainant himself state as one of the conditions of loan that the rate of interest was 9.9% for first 2 (two) years and after that the rate of interest would be variable as per market index. The said 2 (two) year completed in May 2017 and hence was the increase. It is on this principle that the rate of interest reduced to 9% from Nov, 2018 along with the reduction of tenure of loan from 20 years to 18 years resulting, however, in the increase of EMI amount by Rs. 474/- only, against which the complainant has, of course, no grievance.
The contention of the complainant that the OP No.1 assured him to rectify the increased rate of interest if the fine of Rs. 2207/- is paid, is similarly not also acceptable because it is well within the knowledge of the complainant that the rate of interest is variable, after first 2 (two) year, as per market index, i.e. not subject to the payment/non-payment of fine imposed due to bouncing of ECS towards deduction of EMI.
The complainant alleged further that the OP No.1 had realized as plotting charge from him Rs. 11,800/- in place of Rs. 1,180/-. The complainant had not attached any documentary proof (in support of such allegation) that the plotting charge had not increased and remained unchanged. Therefore, this Forum do not find any basis of this allegation of the complainant.
The tenure of the loan is finally 18 (eighteen) years, i.e. it will continue till May, 2033. Therefore, the OP’s calling for the complainant again and again for the loan purpose, the so-called harassment, according to the complainant and the complainant’s meeting with the OPs in his own interest will not end till the completion of tenure of loan. The loan process is still on-going but the instant complaint filed on 30.01.2019.
As discussed above, the Forum find no merit in the case.
In the result, the case does not succeed. Hence it is,
O R D E R E D
that the Consumer case bearing No. 10/S/2019 be and the same is dismissed ex-parte against the OPs.
When an uncontested case is dismissed, i.e, when the grievance of the complainant in spite of its being not challenged does not sustain, then it is supposed that the complaint itself is frivolous. Yet this Forum is not in favour of imposing any cost u/s 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, on the complainant payable to the OPs because the OPs stand automatically favoured by the decision of this Forum even without challenging the complaint leveled against them. It the instant case, the OP No.1 in spite of receiving summon on 04.03.2019 and OP N o2 in spite of praying for time, did not take any self-defence and hence the OPs will not rather, be discharged from the case liability till they deposit either severally or jointly a sum of Rs. 7,000/- (seven thousand rupees) only to the consumer welfare Fund through this Forum. Let the higher authorities of the OPs be informed accordingly.
Let plain copies of this final order/judgement be supplied to the parties and other concerned free of cost.
The case is thus disposed of.
