Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 3.10.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint. 2. The complainants (now appellants) applied for allotment of plots in the AEROCITY Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (hereinafter to be called as GMADA only), Mohali, by availing of loan from the OPs. They were not successful in the draw of lots, held on 13.10.2010. It was stated that the GMADA had refunded the amount, immediately after declaring the result of draw of lots. It was further stated that the complainants paid the interest on loan, for a period of six months. The Complainants approached OP No.2, and sought refund of interest, which was charged, in excess, but it was only after great persuasion, that the OPs, refunded the interest for one month, on 25.3.2011. It was further stated that the OPs had charged interest for five months, whereas, the actual period, for which they were entitled to charge interest, was 3½ months. The Complainants approached the officials of the OPs, but no plausible explanation/justification was given by them, for retention of the interest for the remaining period. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed. 3. In their joint reply, the OPs, admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that the Complainants had applied for the allotment of plots, for which, they sought loan from the OPs. They were granted loan, on the terms and conditions, settled between the parties. It was further stated that the GMADA held the draw of lots of the plots for which the complainants had applied, on different dates, and returned the earnest money to the OPs, as per dates, mentioned in Para 4 of the reply. It was further stated that, at the time of advancement of loan, processing fees was not charged from the complainants. It was further stated that, as per the terms and conditions, settled between the parties, the upfront amount i.e. the interest, on the amount, paid in advance, for taking loan, from the OPs, was non-refundable. It was further stated that after the draw of lots, the competent authority took decision that interest for one month, which was charged in excess, shall be refunded to the customers, as a goodwill gesture, after deducting the processing fee, as the OPs incurred expenses on stationery, labour, postal charges etc. It was denied that there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OPs. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong. 4. The parties led evidence, in support their case. 5. After hearing the authorized representative of the complainants, the Counsel for the respondents, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellants/complainants. 7. We have heard Mr.Surinder Kumar Midha, authorized representative of the appellants/complainants, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 8. Mr.Surinder Kumar Midha, duly authorized representative of the appellants/complainants, submitted that the District Forum did not apply its mind, to the terms and conditions, settled between the parties, at the time of advancement of loan, to the complainants, for applying for allotment of plots to the GMADA. He further submitted that according to Condition No.4 of R3/A, R3/B, R3/C and R3/D of the terms and conditions, on which, loan was granted to the complainants, the OPs were to charge interest @ 7.50% p.a., beyond six months, from the date of disbursement of the same(loan), till the date of refund of earnest money, by the GMADA. He further submitted that the results of draw of lots, were declared, in the month of October,2010. He further submitted that, at the most, interest for 3½ months, on the amount of loan advanced, in favour of the complainants, could be charged, by the OPs, and the remaining amount of interest for 2 ½ months, was required to be refunded to the complainants, but the OPs only refunded interest for one month. He further submitted that, as per information of the complainants, the earnest money which was deposited with the GMADA, by the OPs, on behalf of the complainants, was refunded to them, immediately after the draw of lots. It was further submitted that the action of the OPs, in illegal retention of the amount of interest, for a period of 1½ months, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the authorized representative of the appellants/complainants, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. Undisputedly, the complainants applied for loan, in the shape of earnest money, to the OPs, vide applications R1/A, R1/B, R1/C and R1/D, to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.3,60,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively, with a view to enable them to apply for the allotment of plots in Aerocity GMADA. Vide letters R2/A, R2/B, R2/C and R2/D, their request for grant of loan, in the shape of earnest money, was accepted, subject to other terms and conditions. R3/A, R3/B, R3/C and R3/D, are the terms and conditions, which were settled between the parties, regarding the grant of loan. These documents were signed by the complainants, as also the duly authorized signatory, on behalf of the OPs. It is evident from these documents, that the rate of interest, which was charged, was 7.50% initially to be paid as upfront amount, for advancement of earnest money, to the complainants to apply for plots in Aerocity GMADA. It is further evident from these documents, that the interest charged, was non-refundable. For advancement of loan of Rs.1,50,000/-, interest for a period of six months @ 7.50% p.a., which, in the banking parlance, is termed as upfront amount, was Rs.5625/-, whereas, for the advancement of loan amount of Rs.3,60,000/-, the upfront amount was Rs.13,500/-. This upfront amount was paid, in advance, by the complainants. Condition No.4 of these documents reveales that the Punjab State Cooperative Bank Ltd. shall charge interest @ 7.50% p.a. beyond six months, from the date of disbursement of the loan, till the date of refund of earnest money by GMADA and in case of non-allotment of plot or till the amount of loan is repaid by the borrower in case of allotment of plot in his/her favour. The authorized representative of the complainants, apparently misinterpreted, this condition. This condition did not mean that the upfront amount, i.e. the interest, for a period of six months, which was charged by the OPs, at the time of sanctioning of loan, could not be charged by it. The correct interpretation of Condition No.4 of the terms and conditions, referred to above, is that, if the draw of lots did not take place within six months, from the date of advancement of loan, or refund of earnest money was not made within six months, from the date of sanction of loan, then beyond that period, the applicant shall be liable to pay interest @ 7.50% p.a. This condition did not have any connection with the upfront amount, which, as per the agreement, was charged by the OPs, at the time of advancement of loan. No document was produced by the complainants, as to when the draw of lots took place. The OPs mentioned different dates in the written statement, when the draw of lots took place, than the one, stated by the complainants, in the complaint. Even, no document was produced by the complainants, as to when the earnest money, deposited by them, was refunded to the OPs. Their version, to the effect, that it was refunded immediately, after the declaration of result of the draw of lots, is not supported by any documentary evidence. Agreements R4/A, R4/B, R4/C and R4/D were also executed between the parties and bear their signatures. . According to clause 10 of these documents, upfront charges, recovered, were not to be refunded. It is further evident, from this clause, that if the draw of plot exceeded six months period, from the date of advancement of loan, interest for the period exceeding six months,shall be paid by the applicant. As per the documents, referred to above, the OPs were legally entitled to charge upfront charges, by way of interest, for a period of six months, at the time of advancement of loan and the same were not at all refundable, whether the complainants succeeded in the draw of lots or not. It was only as a goodwill gesture, that the OPs, agreed to refund interest for one month, though they were not legally bound to do so. There was, therefore, no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OPs. The District Forum was also right, in holding so. Since, the OPs made a statement, without admitting the claim of the complainants, that they were ready to settle the matter, in the sum of Rs.1500/-, so the District Forum granted relief to that extent. The order of the District Forum, on the basis of concession, made by the OPs, therefore, cannot be said to be invalid and illegal. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. 11.. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 12. The file be consigned to the Record Room.
| | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
