Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/214/2010

Shiv Dev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sunil Dixit

01 Sep 2011

ORDER


CHANDIGARH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-IPlot No. 5-B, Sector 19-B, Madhya marg, Chandigarh - 160019
CONSUMER CASE NO. 214 of 2010
1. Shiv Dev Singhson of Sh. Jaswant Singh R/o House No. 2168 Phase-VII, Mohali ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. The India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd.SCO No. 477-78 Second Floor SEctor-35/C Chandigarh2. The India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. Corporate Office 448-451 Udyog Vihar Phase-V, Gurgaon-122001Gurgaon3. The India Bulls Hosuing Finance Ltd.F-60 Malhotra Bldg. Second Floor Cannaought Place New delhi-110001 ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :Sunil Dixit, Advocate for
For the Respondent :

Dated : 01 Sep 2011
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH
====
                  

Consumer Complaint No
:
214 of 2010
Date of Institution
:
05.04.2010
Date of Decision   
:
01.09.2011

    
 
Shiv Dev Singh son of Sh.Jaswant Singh, resident of House No.2168, Phase VII, Mohali.
…..Complainant
                   V E R S U S
1]   The India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. SCO No.477-48, Second Floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.
2]   The India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. Corporate Office 448-451, Udyog Vihar Phase V, Gurgaon 122001.
3]   The India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. F-60, Malhotra Building Second Floor, Cannaught Place, New Delhi 110001.
                        ……Opposite Parties
 
CORAM:  SH.P.D.GOEL                      PRESIDENT
          SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL     MEMBER
          DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA     MEMBER
 
 
Argued by: Sh.Sunil Dixit, Counsel for Complainant.
            Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OPs.        
             
PER P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT
         In brief, the case of the complainant is that he availed the Home Equity Loan vide Loan A/c No.HHECHD003181 of Rs.30 lacs which was sanctioned on 20.10.2006. According to the complainant, the OPs only supplied the copy of agreement to him on 27.3.2010. It is alleged that when the rate of interest decreased, the OPs did not bother to decrease the rate of interest. The complainant was told by OPs to deposit Rs.50,000/- as compulsory fee for this very purpose. The OPs did not supply the account statement to check the repayment schedule despite his requests which amounts to deficiency in service.
    The complainant further averred that initially the loan was granted for a period of 12 years but the OPs without taking his consent extended the period of refund of loan as 20 years. When the complainant requested the OPs to supply the complete account statement, he was surprised to see that Rs.1,24,947.47/- has been adjusted towards principal amount whereas he had paid upto Rs.17 lacs to the OPs. The complainant requested the OPs to supply the complete details and the calculations, how and where the OPs adjusted Rs.17 lacs. Ultimately, the complainant served a legal notice dated 7.1.2010 upon the OPs but to no effect, hence this complaint.
2.       OPs appeared and filed reply. It has been admitted that the loan was sanctioned at the floating rate of interest but the same was based on the applicable Prime Lending Rate as was notified from time to time and in case of change in the same, the applicable rate of interest qua the complainant would also change. In case of increase of interest, the monthly interest would increase which could be done by increasing the number of the EMIs or the amount of EMIs or even in certain cases both. It has been further stated that as per RBI guidelines, firstly the amount of the interest and thereafter the principal amount was to be adjusted. The account statement was duly provided whenever demanded by the complainant. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
4.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5.       The close scrutiny of the zimini order dated 11.08.2011 shows that the OPs have supplied the complete calculations as prayed for, therefore, the dispute between the parties remains only with regard to the compensation and litigation costs.
6.       Admittedly, OPs have failed to supply the complete statement of calculations to the complainant despite his repeated requests and despite service of the legal notice dated 11.08.2011 which itself amounts deficiency in service on their part. Concededly the OPs have supplied the complete statement of account to the complainant after filing of the compliant. The complainant would have certainly suffered mental agony and harassment due to non-supply of the complete statement of calculations for which the OPs are liable to compensate him.
7.       As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation, within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy.
8.       The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.
Pronounced
01.09.2011
 
Sd/-
 [P.D. GOEL]
PRESIDENT
 
 
Sd/-
[RAJINDER SINGH GILL]
MEMBER
 
 
Sd/-
[MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA]
MEMBER

MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBERHONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER