BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/954 of 3.11.2010 

                                                Decided on:          13.9.2011

Bharpur Singh, aged about 60 years, son ofSh.Lachhman Singh, resident of Hira Mahal, 110-B, Oppo.C.E.O.Office ,Nabha, District Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

1.                 LIC Housing Finance Ltd.,SCO : 2445-46,Ssector 22-C,Chandigarh, through its Manager.

2.                 LIC Housing Finance Ltd.,near Bharat Sanitary Store, Nabha Gate, Patiala through its Manager

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Amar Singh, Advocate                                        

For opposite parties:     Sh.Amardeep Singh, Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          The complainant raised the housing loan of Rs.3,50,000/- on 15.3.2002 from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Chandigarh i.e. op no.1 through op no.2.As per the terms and conditions of the loan the same was repayable in 129 monthly installments of Rs.4396/- each.

2.       The complainant had been depositing the monthly installments regularly since from the date of the release of the loan amount. The complainant wanted to repay the loan amount in lump sum and accordingly approached ops in this regard in the month of August 2010.However, the ops refused to accept the loan in lump sum and advised the complainant to go on depositing the monthly installments.

3.       At this the complainant stopped depositing the monthly installments w.e.f. 1.8.2010.The act of the ops  in having refused to get the entire outstanding amount deposited in lump sum and having demanded the foreclosure charges is alleged not only a deficiency in service as also an unfair trade practice and accordingly the complainant approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act)

4.       On notice, ops appeared and filed their written version having raised certain legal objections, interalia, that the complainant has not impleaded his wife Smt.Manjit Kaur a co-loanee and that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands. As regards the facts of the complaint, it is admitted that the complainant is a loanee of the ops but he is a defaulter since August 2010.The complainant had taken the loan alongwith his wife Smt.Manjit Kaur .It is denied, if the complainant wanted to re pay the loan amount in lump sum and had approached the ops in August 2010.As a matter of fact he had not deposited the EMIs since August 2010.It is also denied if any foreclosure charges were demanded by the ops from the complainant. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.       In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit,Ex.C1, alongwith the documents,Exs.C2 to C6 and his learned counsel closed the evidence.

6.       On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1,   statement and Ex.R2 the copy of the loan application and closed their evidence.

7.       The parties filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.

8.       As per Ex.R2, the copy of the application to have been moved by the complainant alongwith his wife Smt.Manjit Kaur, the loan was raised by them jointly from the ops and not by the complainant Bharpur Singh alone a fact to have been concealed by the complainant. Nevertheless, we find that the complainant being a co-loanee could maintain the complaint against the ops qua the alleged deficiency attributed to the ops.

9.       The crux of the grievance of the complainant is that he wanted to deposit the lump sum amount due and outstanding in his housing loan account in the month of August/2010 but the ops refused to accept the same . Half heartedly it is also alleged that the ops demanded the foreclosure charges for the deposit of the amount due and outstanding in lump sum. It is not possible to accept the aforesaid plea of the complainant because as and when a borrower has to pay the entire amount due and outstanding in his account, in variably he files an application to know about the exact amount due and payable and on which the concerned bank/institution makes an endorsement about he exact amount payable by the borrower and they also show the foreclosure charges to be deposited by the borrower. Not only that no such application was filed by the complainant ever before op no.2, there is also no evidence to show that the complainant had aver issued any cheque for a particular amount due and outstanding in his account and that the same was not accepted or returned to him.

10.     The matter does not end here. In case the complainant realized that the ops were not accepting the lump sum amount due and outstanding in his account he was supposed to have served ops with a notice  to accept the amount failing which he would have give a caution to them to approach the court of competent jurisdiction for redressing the remedy.

11.     Here, it is important that the complainant has placed in evidence, Ex.C5, the reply to the notice dated 27.12.2010 received by him from the Area Manager LIC Housing Finance Ltd.,Chandigarh but he has intentionally  not produced the legal notice received by him to show as to on what ground he was served with the legal notice. When we asked the learned counsel for the complainant to produce the legal notice, if held by him in his brief, he expressed his inability to do so despite the fact that the reply,Ex.C5 has been prepared by him on behalf of the complainant. In that way, the complainant wanted to conceal the material fact from the Forum. The complainant  might have been demanded of the amount due and outstanding in his account by the ops but in order to avoid the payment of the same he has come forward through the present complaint based on false allegations. Had the complainant produced the legal notice dated 27.12.2010 received by the complainant from the ops, it would have gone to show as to whether he was demanded of any foreclosure charges or not, in the absence of which , we do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:13.9.2011

                             Neelam Gupta      Amarjit Singh Dhindsa    D.R.Arora

                             Member                Member                            President