Date of filing: 23.04.2013.
Date of disposal: 25.11.2013.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao, B.Sc., B. L., President
Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L., Member
Monday, the 25th day of November, 2013
C.C.No.81 of 2013
Between:
Aswani Kumar Vallabhaneni, S/o Appa Rao, Hindu, Aged about 60 years, Business, R/o.D.No.39-1-89, Temple Street, Labbipet, Vijayawada – 10.
And
The Manager, Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., (DHFL), D.No.27-10-51, 1st Floor, Lakshmiram Plaza, Museum Road, Governorpeta, Vijayawada – 520002.
…. Opposite party.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 19.11.2013, in the presence of Sri S. Subhas Chandra Bose, advocate for complainant; Sri A. Bhaskar Rao, advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble President Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao)
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to the opposite party to furnish the particulars of payment made by the complainant to the opposite party towards disbursing loan in chronological order without payment of the amount as demanded by the opposite party, to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs.
2. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant had availed a loan from the opposite party under loan code No.1910 in the year, 2005. The complainant repaid the entire loan amount and asked the opposite party several times to furnish the details of payments but they did not furnish the details. The opposite party still made demands and humiliated the complainant with regard to loan. The complainant got issued notice dated 3.4.2013 calling upon the opposite party to furnish the information as to the amount of loan granted by the opposite party, rate of interest claimed by the opposite party and full details of payments made by the complainant on respective dates in respect of loan including interest. The complainant further informed that he was ready to pay the balance amount, if any amount is due to the opposite party. The opposite party did not furnish the details and issued a reply notice stating that full statement of loan will be given on payment of Rs.562/- with service tax. It amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore the present complaint is filed.
3. The opposite party filed its written version in the form of counter stating as follows:
The complainant availed loan of Rs.22,00,000/- under loan account No.1910 on 29.3.2005 and his wife Jayanthi had availed loan facility of Rs.24,00,000/- under loan account No.1976 on 18.8.2005 from the opposite party. They executed loan documents and agreed to the terms and conditions of the loan. The opposite party had deposited title deeds and agreed to repay the loan amount with interest in monthly instalments. The complainant was irregular in payment of instalments. He never regularized the loan account despite demands. The opposite party initiated proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI ACT) and issued notice on 26.2.2013 to the complainant and two others. Then the complainant issued a notice dated 3.4.2013 for which a reply was given. The complainant was informed that as per the norms of DHFL Tariff Schedule the borrower has to pay Rs.500/- + service tax for obtaining full statement of loan. This complaint is filed as the opposite party initiated proceedings under SARFAESI ACT. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
4. The complainant filed his affidavit in support of his contention and it is received as deposition of PW-1. The Manager of the opposite party filed his affidavit and it is received as evidence of DW-1. Exs.A1 to A3 are marked on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B1 to B4 are marked on behalf of the opposite party.
5. Heard the arguments advanced by both the parties.
6. The points for determination are:
- Whether the complainant is entitled to statement of account free of charges as claimed?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
Point No.1:
7. The parties are not in dispute as regards creation of loan and obligation to repay the loan. According to the complainant he repaid entire loan amount but the opposite party disputes it. The opposite party demanded the amount said to be due by the notice dated 9.4.2013 under Ex.B3. In that reply notice the opposite party had given the details of loan borrowed, rate of interest and the additional rate of interest and also the equated monthly instalment. The opposite party further stated the amount due towards EMI outstanding, towards additional interest on EMI outstanding and other charges. This Forum cannot now go into the correctness or otherwise of the amounts claimed. The contention of the complainant is that he asked for details of payments made by the complainant datewise towards loan and interest. Evidently those particulars are not given in the reply notice. Admittedly the opposite party did not furnish such particulars and claimed charges of Rs.500/- + service tax for issuing statement of loan account.
8. The opposite party filed Ex.B1 tariff schedule relating to housing loan and non-housing loan. Item.19 of that schedule relates to ‘loan prepayment/closure (fully) statement charges’ and the charges noted are Rs.500/- + service tax. At the end of the Ex.B1 there are three items noted as cost free services. Item.1 of them is annual account statement/provisional certificate. Item.19 referred to above is not annual account statement or normal account statement but it relates to statement only after closure of the account. When the opposite party does not say that the account is closed, Item.19 has no application. Under Item.1 of cost free services’ of Ex.B1 referred to above the opposite party is bound to deliver annual account statement to the loanee. It is not the case of the opposite party that it had given such statement free of charges at any time. Therefore we hold that the opposite party has an obligation to issue annual account statement for each year right from the date of giving loan till the date of last payment. Therefore we hold that the complainant is entitled to such statement. The opposite party has not filed copy of agreement.
Point No.2:
9. In view of answer on point no.1 the complainant is entitled to the statement as per point no.1 and also costs assessed at Rs.500/-.
10. In the result this complaint is allowed in part and the opposite party is directed to issue annual account statement of the complainant’s loan account right from the date of loan 29.3.2005 till the date of last payment made by the complainant. The opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- towards costs to the complainant. The opposite party shall comply with the order within one month from the date of this order. The complaint for rest of the reliefs is dismissed.
Dictated to Steno N. Hazarathaiah, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 25th day of November, 2013.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:
Aswani Kumar Vallabhaneni, The Manager of OP – DW-1,
PW-1,(by Affidavit) (by affidavit)
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 03.04.2013 Copy of legal notice got issued by complainant to OP..
Ex.A2 03.04.2013 Postal receipt.
Ex.A3 09.04.2013 Original copy of reply letter issued by OP to complainant’s counsel.
On behalf of the opposite party:
Ex.B1 01.01.2013 Photocopy of Annexure-A, DHFL Tariff Schedule of OP . Ex.B2 Photocopies of e-mail correspondence between the parties.
Ex.B3 26.02.2013 Photocopy of notice issued by OP to complainant.
Ex.B4 21.05.2013 Photocopy of paper publication.
PRESIDENT
