Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

793/2009

G.Arunachalam - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.N.Ravikumar

01 Mar 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                           Date of Filing  : 24.07.2009

                                                                          Date of Order : 01.03.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (SOUTH)

2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                :  MEMBER-I

          DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

                                       C.C. NO.793 /2009

THURSDAY THE 1^ST  DAY OF MARCH 2018

                                              

Mr. G. Arunachalam,

No.4/630 J.J. Nagar,

East Mogappair,

Chennai – 37.                                                    .. Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

 

The Branch Manager,

India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd.,

No.20 Apex Chamber 1^st Floor,

Sir Thigvaraya Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai – 17.                          ..  Opposite party.

 

 

Counsel for complainant         :  M/s. S.N.Ravikumar   

Counsel for opposite party     :  M/s. S.Saravanan

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.10,513/- towards excess amount paid and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          The complainant submit that  he availed housing loan of Rs.7,75,000/- vide loan account bearing No.HLCHN06019.  The opposite party  paid a sum of Rs.7,61,416/- after deducting a sum of Rs.13584/- under various head.  The complainant state that  City Union Financial Service Pvt. Ltd  with several pecuniary benefits with regard to housing loan.   Hence the complainant approached the opposite party for foreclosing of the housing loan.  As per clause 2.5 of the loan agreement  “ prepayment charges has to be  decided mutually and the opposite party cannot fix the same in arbitrary manner.  It is important  to say that nowhere in the terms and conditions the percentage of charge in case of foreclosure was specified.  But the opposite party claimed 5.62% towards foreclosure charges i.e. a sum of Rs.8,11,211.31/- towards full and final settlement of the loan and fixed foreclosure charges at Rs.42,738.94 which is arbitrary.   Even after repeated requests and demands the opposite party has not accepted the demand.   Hence the complainant paid a sum of Rs.8,11,000/  towards settlement of loan, foreclosure charges, in which a sum of Rs.42,736.94 is a foreclosure charges.  Thereafter the complainant found out other than the foreclosure charges the opposite party had received a sum of Rs.10,513/- as excess  Hence the complainant issued notice to the opposite party on 10.7.2008.  The opposite party considered the notice and issued a cheque for Rs.10,513/- dated 13.6.2008  in the name of  unknown person.  Despite of repeated demands made by the complainant the opposite party has not complied the demand.     As such the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.  

2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite party is as follows:

The   opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The  opposite party state that the foreclosure charges levied by the complainant  as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and not against the rules.   It is alleged that the opposite party has received excess amount of Rs.10,513/- form the complainant.   The cheque could have been wrongly sent to the complainant and the same cannot be taken as a liability of the opposite party as it need not pay any amount to the complainant.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite  party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and no document marked on the side of the  opposite party.

4.      The points for consideration is :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,513/- paid excess to the opposite party as prayed for ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost as prayed for ?

4.  POINTS  1 & 2:

        Heard both parties.  Perused the records (viz) complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents.  Admittedly the complainant availed housing loan of Rs.7,75,000/- vide loan account bearing No.HLCHN06019.  The opposite party  paid a sum of Rs.7,61,416/- after deducting a sum of Rs.13584/- under various head.  Ex.A1 is the loan agreement.   Ex.A2    letter is showing that disbursement of loan.  The learned counsel for the complainant contended that City Union Financial Service Pvt. Ltd  shows several offer including pecuniary benefit with regard to housing loan.   Hence the complainant approached the opposite party for foreclosing of the housing loan.  As per clause 2.5 of the loan agreement is as follows: “ prepayment charges has to be  decided mutually and the opposite party cannot fix the same in arbitrary manner.  It is important say that nowhere in the terms and conditions the percentage of charge in case of foreclosure was specified.  But the opposite party claimed 5.62% towards foreclosure charges as of right i.e. a sum of Rs.8,11,000/- claimed towards full and final settlement of the loan and fixed the  foreclosure charges  fixed at Rs.42,738.94 which is arbitrary and unreasonable.  Even after repeated requests and demands the opposite party has turned deaf ear. Hence the complainant paid a sum of Rs.8,11,000/  towards settlement of loan foreclosure charges as per Ex.A5 in which a sum of Rs.42,736.94 is a foreclosure charges.  Thereafter the complainant calculated the said amount in consequences with the terms of agreement and find out that the opposite party has collected a sum of Rs.10,513/- excess towards the loan.  Hence the complainant issued notice Ex.A7.  The opposite party considered the notice and issued a cheque for Rs.10,513/- dated 13.6.2008  in the name of one D.Shanmugam, Central Bank of India as per Ex.A6.   Even after repeated representation that the cheque issued was in the name of Shanmugam should be cancelled and cheque of Rs.10,513/- be issued in the name of complainant ended in vain.  Hence the complainant was constrained to file this case.

5.     The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement the foreclosures charges collected cannot be questioned.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the allegation of excess amount of Rs.10,513/- is totally denied.  Equally the cheque could have been wrongly sent to be complainant and the same cannot be taken as a liability of the opposite party as it need not pay any amount to the complainant is not acceptable.   Since the opposite party has not responded to the notice  Ex.A7 and admittedly collected a sum of Rs.8,11,000/- towards the settlement of loan with a sum of Rs.42,738.94 as foreclosure charges which is more than 5.62% as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement towards foreclosure without giving any chance of mutual decision proves that the opposite party has collected a sum of Rs.10,513/- in excess the said amount also sent to the complainant by the opposite party in name of one D.Sunmugam, Central Bank of India is also proved establishes deficiency in service.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.10513/- and also shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- and the points are answered accordingly.

          In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.10513/- (Rupees ten thousand five hundred and  thirteen only)  and also shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only  for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above  amounts shall be payable  within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 1^st  day of March 2018. 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1-             - Copy of Loan Agreement

Ex.A2- 24.6.2006 - Copy of letter from opposite party.

Ex.A3- 26.2.2006 - Copy of letter from opposite party.

Ex.A4- 29.4.2008 - Copy of the letter.

Ex.A5- 29.4.2008 - Copy of the cheque.

Ex.A6- 13.6.2008 - Copy of the cheque.

Ex.A7- 10.7.2008 - Copy of the legal notice.

Ex.A8-            - Copy of Ack.

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:    .. Nil..

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.