State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Saudagar Singh vs Housing Development Finance ... on 25 April, 2014
2nd ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1295 of 2012.
Date of Institution: 01.10.2012
Date of Decision: 25.04.2014.
Saudagar Singh S/o Bhagta Singh, R/o Village Kattu, Tehsil and District
Barnala.
.....Appellant/Complainant.
Versus
1. Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited, SCO 153-155,
Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160008, through its
Regional Manager/ZM/Branch Head.
2. Branch Manager, Housing Development Finance Corporation
Limited, near Power House Road, Bathinda.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties.
First Appeal against the order dated
16.08.2012 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Bathinda.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : None.
For the respondents Sh. Shekhar Verma, Advocate with Sh. N.S. Rawat, Deputy Manager.
.................................................. GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Order The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as "complainant") has filed the present appeal against the order dated First Appeal No.1295 of 2012. 2 16.08.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, "the District Forum"), Bathinda, in Consumer Complaint No.187 dated 20.04.2012 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed being not maintainable.
2. The complaint was filed by the complainant on the allegations that the complainant took the loan of Rs.1 lac in April, 2000 in Loan Account No.560159345 from the respondents/opposite party (hereinafter referred as 'opposite parties") and at that time, his signatures were taken on various blank papers. He was directed to pay Rs.1,315/- per month for 10 years. Rate of interest was not disclosed to the complainant but at that time, the rate prevalent was 7% p.a. The complainant had paid all the installments and a total amount of Rs.2,53,995/- had been paid. No statement of account was supplied to him till date. When he approached the opposite parties to issue the NOC, they revealed that still a sum of Rs.15,775/- was outstanding against him and it was told that the rate of interest was 13.38% which was highly excessive. There was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint, praying that they be directed to issue No Due Certificate; to refund excess amount charged on the basis of 13.38% instead of 7% and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite party, who filed written statement, taking preliminary objections that the Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The loan was applied for at Chandigarh, promissory note and loan agreement were signed at Chandigarh. Loan amount was sanctioned at Chandigarh and the entire record was at Chandigarh, therefore, no cause of action had arisen at Bathinda; the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1320/- on 06.11.2009, whereas the present complaint has been filed on 30.03.2012, which was First Appeal No.1295 of 2012. 3 clearly barred by limitation. The relief sought for by the complainant was for rendition of accounts and the remedy lies only in the civil court. The complaint was false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant, therefore, the complaint be dismissed with special costs; the complainant had concealed material facts and documents from the Forum and that the complainant was not a consumer and had no locus standi to file the complaint.
4. On merits, it was denied that the branch office at Bathinda was made functional in the month of January, 2007. It was admitted that the complainant had taken a house loan in January, 2000 under Loan Account No.560159345 for a sum of Rs.1 lac for the construction of his house and executed loan agreement dated 21.01.2000. It was denied that the complainant had to pay Rs.1,315/- per month for 10 years, rather as per the loan agreement, the same was repayable in 180 monthly installments of Rs.1,323/- each. The rate of interest mentioned in the agreement was 13.5%. However, at the time of actual disbursement of the loan, the rate was fixed as 13.38%. It was denied that a sum of Rs.2,53,995/- was deposited by the complainant till date. In fact, he has deposited just Rs.1,92,303/- as on 14.06.2012 and a sum of Rs.84,388/- was due on account of default of repayment of installments and a sum of Rs.15,775/- was due on account of outstanding loan installment and a sum of Rs.68,613/- was due on account of additional interest. Accordingly, it was stated that there is no merit in the complaint and the same be dismissed.
5. Parties were allowed by the learned District Forum, to lead their evidence.
6. In support of his allegations, the complainant tendered his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of statement of account Ex.C-2, additional First Appeal No.1295 of 2012. 4 affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-3 and copy of receipt dated 21.02.2009 Ex.C-4.
7. On the other hand, the opposite parties tendered copy of loan agreement Ex.R-1, statements of accounts Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-16, affidavit of Sh. Nandan Singh Rawat, Asstt. Manager, HDFC Dated 15.06.2012 Ex.R- 17, affidavit of Sh. Rahul Sharma, Branch Manager Ex.R-18, copy of letter dated 19.08.1999, letter of authority dated 27.02.2012 Ex.R-20 and certified copy of resolution Ex.R-21.
8. After going the allegations of the complaint, written reply filed by the opposite party, evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint, vide the impugned order, observing that the complainant alleged the rate of interest as 7% p.a., whereas the opposite party in loan agreement has referred the rate of interest as 13.5% and charged the rate 13.38%. There is dispute with regard to the charging excess rate of interest and such matter does not lie in the Consumer Forum because the Consumer Forum is to allow the interest as agreed. Reliance was placed on a case reported as "C.B. Singh (Dr.) Vs. HDFC Bank & Anr.", 2009 (4) CLT-563. Another judgment has been referred as "Omega Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Bank of India & Ors." I (1995) CPJ-1 (NC), wherein it has been held that excess interest charged which require scrutiny of about 700 entries. Accordingly, it was stated that the Forum cannot try and hear the complaint and the same was dismissed.
9. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
10. We have gone through the record of the learned District Forum and grounds of appeal so pleaded by the appellant/complainant and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the First Appeal No.1295 of 2012. 5 appellant and respondents/opposite parties. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant/complainant.
11. In the grounds of appeal, it was contended that the District Forum was duty bound to decide the complaint of the appellant/complainant on merits. The respondents in their written statement have stated that a sum of Rs.84,388/- is outstanding i.e. Rs.15,775/- as outstanding loan installment and Rs.68,713/- on account of additional interest.
12. The judgment so relied upon by the learned District Forum is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
13. The learned District Forum has relied upon the judgment reported as "C.B. Singh (Dr.) Vs. HDFC Bank & Anr.", 2009 (4) CLT 563 in which it has been observed that in case there is dispute with regard to any charging of interest, then such matter does not lie in the Consumer Fora, whereas the Hon'ble National Commission in judgment reported as "Sutlej Textile & Industries Limited Vs. Punjab National Bank" I (2010) CPJ 312 held that summary trial for trying consumer complaints is practically akin to that of civil court to decide a civil suit. Only difference is that the Consumer Fora will not insist upon the technicalities or procedure. The jurisdiction of the Fora will not oust merely because in the complaint based on defect in goods, deficiency in service, fraud, forgery, criminal acts have been alleged.
14. Here in the present case, the complainant has alleged that excessive rate of interest has been charged. The loan documents are on the record. On the basis of loan document, it can be very much interpreted whether the rate of interest settled between the parties was 7% or 13.38% as alleged by the opposite parties and after that, it can be calculated what was the amount due against the complainant and what First Appeal No.1295 of 2012. 6 amount has been deposited by him and accordingly, the account can be settled and it can also be determined whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the findings so recorded by the District Forum are not correct findings. The District For a, on the basis of evidence and documents on record, should have decided the controversy between the parties. Therefore, the order so passed by the District Forum is legally not sustainable.
15. In view of above discussion, we allow the appeal. The order so passed by the District Forum is set aside. The complaint is remitted back to the District Forum, with a direction to decide the controversy between the parties on merits, as the dispute between the parties falls within the ambit of Consumer Fora.
16. Parties through counsel are directed to appear before the District Forum on 29.05.2014.
17. Record of the District Forum along with copy of the order be sent to the District Forum forthwith.
18. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 15.04.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
19. The appeal could not be decided within stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member April 25, 2014.
(Gurmeet S)