DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Civil Station, Palakkad – 678001, Kerala
Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
CC.No.140/2009
P.G.Prasad, S/o.P.K.Govindan, Poovathingal House, Kalladikode, Valikode, Mannarkkad Taluk. - Complainant (Party in person)
Vs
1. The Manager, ICICI Bank, Main Branch, Palakkad.
2. The Manager, ICICI Bank, RAOG, Thrissur Office, Thrissur. - Opposite parties (By Adv.M.Ramesh for both opposite parties)
O R D E R
By Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member
The complainant has availed a housing loan from the 1st opposite party bank on 02/11/05 vide No.LBPGT.00001183283 for an amount of Rs.4,14,000/-. The amount of EMI is fixed at Rs.3499/- under floating rate of interest @ 7.5%. The opposite party has increased rate of interest upto 13%. Thereafter the complainant has decided to close housing loan as the rate of interest is increasing. The complainant has paid the following amounts to the 2nd opposite party bank on 07/03/08 Rs.1,50,000/-
on 11/4/08 Rs.1,00,000/- on 1/5/08 Rs.294/- on 17/11/08 Rs.79266/- Also the complainant was regular in payment of the monthly installments. But the opposite parties has not debited the amount in the loan account on the same dates. Complainant has paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the 2nd opposite party on 07/03/2008 but the amount was debited in the loan account only on 01/05/08. Complainant has paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 11/04/08 but the amount was debited on 01/06/08. The amount of Rs.79,266/- was paid on 17/11/2008 but debited on 01/01/09. So the complainant has to pay loan amount upto 01/02/2010. All these acts of the opposite parties amounts to clear deficiency in service and the act of opposite parties in non-accounting of amount has incurred loss of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. Hence the complaint seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the financial loss due to excess interest paid by the complainant and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Both opposite parties filed version denying the alleged deficiency in service. Admittedly the complainant had taken housing loan from the 1st opposite party bank. Opposite parties denied the allegation of the complainant that the amount was not debited in the loan account on the same date. The say of the complainant that excess interest was paid to the opposite parties was denied. The opposite parties stated that the complainant has to pay further monthly installment to the opposite parties. And this complaint was filed with an intention to avoid payment of further monthly installments to the opposite parties. Thus the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Complainant and opposite parties adduced their evidence by affidavits and documents. Exts.A1 and A2 series marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 marked on the side of opposite parties. Matter was heard.
Issues to be considered are; Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? If so, what is the relief and cost?
Issues 1 & 2: We perused relevant documents on record. It is admitted that the complainant has taken housing loan from the opposite parties. As per Ext.A1 and Ext.B1 the housing loan installment period was from 01/02/2006 to 01/02/2010. The opposite parties stated that Ext.B1 is the account statement dated 8/12/09. According to Ext.A2 series Rs.1,45,000/- and Rs.5,000/- was paid on 7/3/08 by the complainant. According to Ext.B1 amount adjusted on 18/3/08 was Rs.1,45,000/- and Rs.5,000/-. Further complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 11/4/08 as per Ext.A2 series. Ext.B1 shows that Rs.1,00,000/- was adjusted on 15/4/08. According to Ext.A2 series the complainant paid Rs.79,560/- on 18/11/08 but it is seen in the Ext.B1 that the amount of Rs.79,266/- adjusted on 20/11/2008. According to Ext.B1 the complainant was regular in payment of the monthly installment to the opposite party. The opposite parties stated that all amounts paid by the complainant was adjusted in the loan account on the same date and produced the Ext.B1 document in support of the same. But it is seen in Ext.B1 that the amount paid was not adjusted on the same date of payment. And no reason or explanation is forthcoming from the side of the opposite parties for the delay in amount adjusting on the same date. The complainant argued that the balance amount and interest of the housing loan of each month was not stated in Ext.B1. Also the opposite parties has debited over due charges in the loan account. No evidence was produced by the opposite party for over due charges.
According to Ext.A1 the repayment schedule dated 25/08/2009, on 01/03/2008 the closing principal amount is Rs.4,01,933/-. The complainant stated that Rs.1,50,000/- was paid on 7/3/08 and Rs.1,00,000/- was paid on 11/4/08. On 1/04/08 the closing principal amount was Rs.4,01,628/- and on 1/5/08 the closing principal amount was Rs.2,50,176/-. In Ext.A1, the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was debited on 1/5/08 and Rs.1,00,000/- was debited on 1/6/08. According to Ext.A1 on 1/11/08 the closing principal was Rs.1,33,602/- and on 1/12/08 the closing principal was Rs.1,30,892/-. The complainant has paid Rs.79,266/- on 17/11/08 to the opposite parties. But the opposite parties has debited Rs.79,266/- in the loan account on 01/01/09 as per Ext.A1. It is true that the opposite parties has not debited the amount paid by the complainant in the loan account on the same date. No evidence is forthcoming from the side of the opposite parties to substantiate its case that the payment of complainant was deducted in the loan account on the same date. The opposite parties argued that Ext.A1 is the repayment schedule. As per Ext.A1 the end of the page No.2 and 3 the huge amount paid by the complainant was noted and Ext.A1 issued on 25/8/2009. But the installment period was 1/02/08 to 1/02/10. So we cannot consider the same as repayment schedule. In view of the above discussions we are of the view that the opposite parties was negligent in deducting the payment of complainant in the loan account on the same date. We hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint allowed.
The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation. In the affidavit complainant claimed Rs.31,122/- as the excess interest paid by the complainant due to deficiency in service of the opposite parties and the balance amount is the compensation and cost of the proceedings. There can be no doubt about the fact that the complainant suffered mental agony due to the aforesaid attitude adopted by the opposite parties. So the complainant has to be compensated adequately. We are of the view
that a sum of Rs.15,000/- can be considered as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
In the result complaint allowed. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of order till realisation.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of July, 2010 Sd/- Seena.H, President Sd/- Preetha.G.Nair, Member Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Appendix Date of filing: 15/10/2009 Witnesses examined on the side of complainant Nil Witnesses examined on the side of opposite parties Nil Exhibits marked on the side of complainant Ext.A1 – Photocopy of repayment schedule Ext.A2 (Series) – Payment receipts
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties Ext.B1 – Account statement from 7/11/05 to 8/12/09 Cost (Allowed) Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings
| | [HONORABLE Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K] Member[HONORABLE Smt.Seena.H] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Smt.Preetha.G.Nair] Member | |
