BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

[1]     Aman Verma s/o Sh. Prem Kumar Verma.

[2]     Raman Verma S/o Sh. Prem Kumar Verma.

[3]     Mrs. Santosh Verma w/o Sh. Prem Kumar Verma.

[4]     Mrs. Kavita Verma w/o Sh. Raman Verma.

[5]     Prem Kumar Verma S/o Late Sh. Girdhari Lal Verma.

All residents of H.No.3129, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh.

….…Complainants

V E R S U S

[1]     The Reliance Capital Ltd., ‘H’ Block, 1^st Floor, Dhiru Bhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai, Mumbai – 400710, Maharashtra India, through its Managing Director.

[2]     The Reliance Capital Limited, SCO No. 309-310, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:      SH.P.D.GOEL                                               PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                         MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh.Vineet Sehgal, Counsel for complainants.

Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OPs

PER P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT

1.                The case of the complainants in brief is that they took a loan of Rs.2.37 crores against property  from  the  OP

No.2 in April 2008. They regularly paid the EMI fixed by the OPs without any default. In order to get the loan account closed before the fixed schedule time, the Complainants requested the OP No.2 to prepare a foreclosure statement/ detail. To their utter shock and dismay, the OP No.2 demanded Rs.2,17,34,792.85P for settling the loan account. The sum of Rs.4,32,700.80P were charged as foreclosure charges @2%, inspite of the mutual understanding between the parties that no foreclosure charges would be charged. However, the complainants deposited the aforesaid amount under protest on 07.07.2010. The several written and oral requests were made by the complainants did not yield the desired results, so a representation/ notice dated 12.01.2011 was served upon the OP No.2, but the amount overcharged as foreclosure charges have not been refunded to the Complainants. Hence, this complaint.   

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

3.                OPs in their joint reply pleaded that the prepayment charges were duly mentioned in the loan agreement and the same was charged on the basis of the sanction letter, copies of which were duly provided to the Complainants. The loan was closed by the Complainants voluntarily. It was denied that the OP had ever promised to the Complainants that no prepayment charges shall be taken. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on his part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.

6.                The admitted facts many be noticed thus ;

a)                That the bank – OPs advanced the loan of Rs.2.37 crores against property to the complainant in April, 2008.  

7.                The learned Counsel for the complainants argued that the complainant regularly paid the EMI fixed by the OPs without any default. The complainants intended to close loan account prior to the schedule time and as such, they requested the OP No.2 to prepare a foreclosure statement. The OP No.2 demanded foreclosure charges to the tune of Rs.4,32,700.80P. The complainants deposited the aforesaid amount under protest on 07.07.2010.  It was argued that the demand of Rs.4,32,700.80P raised by the OP No.2 is illegal and unjustified.

8.                The learned Counsel for the OPs submitted that as per the sanction letter, the complainants were liable to pay foreclosure charges, so the demand in question raised by the OPs bank is legal and justified.

9.                The original sanction letter contains a clause with regard to foreclosure charges @ 2% plus service tax. The said sanction letter has been signed by the parties to the lis. The Loan Agreement executed between the parties annexed with the reply in April, 2008 also contains a clause with regard to prepayment charges. The complainant and OPs are also signatories to the said loan agreement.  

10.              Admittedly, the OPs are charging pre-payment foreclosure charges @ 2% as mentioned in the original sanction letter.

11.           Now, it is clear that in case of full and final payment, prior to the date of normal expiry, the loanee shall be liable to pay 2% on the amount prepaid and on the amount paid by the borrower towards the repayment of the loan from the date of final payment. It is also clear that at the time of advancing/taking the loan, a sanction letter was issued to the complainants, in which, it was mentioned that the loan would be advanced at floating rate of interest.

12.           Admittedly, the payment of Rs.4,32,700.80P was on account of prepayment/foreclosure charges. Therefore, as per sanction letter and also as per the terms & conditions of the loan agreement executed between the parties, the OPs had a legal right to charge foreclosure charges. There is no dispute that in the instant case, the amount of Rs.4,32,700.80P had been charged by the OPs-bank on account of foreclosure charges/prepayment charges. The court is to gather the intention of the parties and in view of this, it is held that the OP intended to charge prepayment charges, as per the sanction letter and also as per the terms & conditions of the loan agreement. Therefore, it is held without any hesitation that the OP had a legal right to charge Rs.4,32,700.80P on account of prepayment charges, as per the sanction letter and also as per the terms & conditions contained in the agreement. It is not disputed that the sanction letter was not signed by the parties to the lis i.e. complainants and the authorized signatory of the bank – OPs. Since, the complainants are signatory to the sanction letter which contains clause with regard to prepayment charges, so it is held that the demand raised by the OPs-bank of Rs.4,32,700.80P on account of foreclosure charges/prepayment charges is legal and genuine.

13.           As a result of the above discussion, it is held that the complainants have failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs. With the result, the complaint is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

14.               Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.