Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/12/2014

R.M. VISALAKSHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

G.I.C. HOUSING FINANCE LTD., BRANCH MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

N.L. RAJAH

02 Dec 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE :       Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH               PRESIDENT

                      Thiru R VENKATESAPERUMAL                    MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.12/2014

(Against order in CC.NO.219/2010 on the file of the DCDRC, Coimbatore)

 

      DATED THIS THE 2^nd DAY OF DECEMBER 2022      

 

Mrs. R.M. Visalakshi

Rep. by her Power Agent

V. Ramaswamy                                                  M/s. J. Dharmarajan

Door No.2, Alamu Nagar                                          Counsel for       

Coimbatore – 12                                            Appellant / Complainant

 

                                                         Vs.

 

1.       M/s. G.I.C.Housing Finance Ltd.,

          Rep. by its Branch Manager

          Coimbatore Branch

 

2.       G.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd.,                       M/s. Ramalingam

          Rep. by its Managing Director                        Counsel for

          Mumbai                                           Respondents/ Opposite parties

 

          The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the Complainant praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.28.12.2010 in CC.No.219/2010.

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for the appellant, and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

 

ORDER

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

1.       This appeal has been filed by the appellant/ complainant as against the order dt.28.12.2010 passed in CC.No.219/2010 on the file of the District Commission, Coimbatore, in dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant / complainant herein.

 

2.       The brief facts which are necessary to decide the appeal is as follows:

           The complainant had availed a home loan for purchase of a flat in Alamu Nagar, Coimbatore, for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from the opposite parties, during the year 1998.   Due to the serial bomb blast took place in Coimbatore, she had faced severe setbacks in business, but inspite of the same she had remitted the amount to the best of her ability.   But, the said loan accounts were classified as NPA.  The 1^st opposite party had demanded interest @16% p.a., even after the account is classified as NPA, alongwith the penal interest @6% for the default period.    On 4.8.2009, the 2^nd opposite party had sent a notice under Sec.13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial assets and enforcement of Security Interest Act to settle the amount due of Rs.33,04,753/-.   On receipt of the notice, the complainant sent a letter requesting the opposite party to give the copies of loan documents under RTI Act, but the same has not been complied with.  Hence the complainant had sent a legal notice, stating that interest charged @ 16% is on the higher side and the penal interest cannot be charged if the loan account is classified as NPA.  Again on 17.9.2009 and 29.9.2009 the complainant had sent letters to the 2^nd opposite party requesting them to calculate simple interest at 12% p.a., and to waive the penal interest levied on the amount outstanding in her account.  While so the 2^nd opposite party had given proposal for onetime settlement on 12.11.2009.  The breakups of the payment to be made for the one time settlement is given such as the principal outstanding is Rs.6,94,130/- and the interest on the said amount at 16% p.a., i.e., Rs.10,83,526/- and the penal interest at 6% p.a., is Rs.4,22,344/-.  After receipt of the said letter the complainant had demanded to waive the penal interest charged at 6% for the settlement on the loan amount which is already classified as NPA.  But the opposite party has not come forward to waive the penal interest @ Rs.4,22,344/-  The opposite party also threatened the complainant that if the above one time settlement amount arrived by them is not settled she had to face the dire consequences.  Hence left with no other alternatives, in order to save the property, the complainant paid entire amount mentioned in letter dt.12.11.2009.  The collection of penal interest by the opposite party is unfair trade practice.  Because of the irrespective attitude of the opposite party, the complainant is put to much stress and mental harassment.  In fact the complainant refused to pay the penal interest.  Since the complainant  was threatened with dire consequences she paid the said amount.  Hence the complainant made a repeated demands to refund the said amount of Rs.4,22,344/-. But the opposite party has not come forward to comply with the demand.  Hence the complainant filed a complaint praying for a direction to the opposite parties to refund the penal interest collected at Rs.422344/- alongwith compensation of Rs.1 lakh. 

 

3.       By resisting the case of the complainant, the opposite party filed their written version as follows:

          After availing housing loan of Rs.7 lakhs, the complainant executed a loan documents on 21.1.1998, agreeing to abide by the term and conditions.  She had also agreed to pay Rs.12,268/- p.m., for 108 months, and the interest @16% p.a.,   Right from the beginning, the complainant was supinely indifferent and callous in repayment of the loan.  After utilizing the funds, the complainant did not care to repay the loan inspite of several repeated reminders, legal notice etc.  In this regard, the opposite party also had issued a notice calling upon the complainant to repay the loan amount.  After March 2001 till 30.11.2009 she has not paid even a single rupee.  As on date of OTS, the complainant was liable to pay a total sum of Rs.34,20,116/- which includes principal, interest and penal interest.  The penal interest @2% p.m., works out to Rs.18,13,010/-.  She had paid under OTS only a sum of Rs.23,34,948/- which includes Principal, Interest @16% p.a., and Penal Interest of Rs.397351/-.  In other words, instead of collecting penal interest of Rs.3,97,351/-. She had been given waiver of Rs.14,15,659/-.  OTS scheme is concluded between the opposite party and the complainant which cannot be re-opened or questioned in a court of law.  After availing the benefits, she had received back all the security documents sale deeds etc., from the opposite party.  The complainant agreed to pay simple interest at 16% p.a.  The complainant also had agreed to pay penal interest for the delayed payment @2% p.m.   Declaration of Asset as NPA will not give any right to the borrower to claim lower rate of interest.  There is absolutely no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. 

 

4.       In order to prove the case, proof affidavits were filed by both parties, alongwith documents, which are marked as Ex.A1 to A13 on the side of the complainant.  There were no documents filed on the side of the opposite party. 

 

5.       The District Commission, after analysing the evidence had come to the conclusion that the complainant having accepted the OTS scheme, and paid the amount as per the scheme, now cannot go back and contend that the financiers had collected the penal interest as against the agreement or law, and thus holding had dismissed the complaint by imposing cost to the complainant.  Aggrieved over the order impugned, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant. 

 

6.       Before this commission, the Respondents though appeared through counsel, had not appeared for the oral arguments.  Written arguments of both parties filed.  We have perused the materials placed on record, order impugned and the written arguments, and heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 

 

7.       The main submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ complainant is that after classifying the loan availed by the complainant as NPA, there is no justification in collecting the penal interest @6% p.a., i.e. Rs.4,22,344/-.  Therefore, the amount collected towards the penal interest has to be refunded. 

          Further the complainant was forced to agree for the one time settlement on threatening that if the amount is not settled, she has to face dire consequences.  Therefore, having no other option, in order to safeguard the property, she had signed for OTS.  Therefore the one time settlement cannot stand as a stumbling block for refunding the amount by the opposite party. 

8.       Having considered the submissions made, we are of the considered opinion that, the complainant having agreed for one time settlement, now cannot turn around and say that the penal interest collected is unjustifiable.  Moreover, as admitted by the complainant and as seen from the documents, it is clear that the complainant after having detailed discussions with the opposite party only   had given her consent and signed in the OTS agreement.  Therefore, now the submission of the complainant that she was forced to sign the OTS agreement is purely an afterthought.  Therefore, absolutely we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Commission, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.

 

 

8.       In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the order of the District Commission, Coimbatore, in CC.No.219/2010 dt.28.12.2010.  There is no order as to cost in this appeal.

 

 

 

 

          R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                          R. SUBBIAH

                        MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT