BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 20^th DAY OF JANUARY 2024

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

Complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction to OP No.1 to stop making demands for EMI till the pending of this complaint, also seeking direction to OP No.1 not to affect the CIBIL score of the complainant and to delete or reverse any such CIBIL score with him have been entered into CIBIL report, direction to OP No.1 to recover due amount from OP No.2,3,4 either by the way of sale proceedings or such other channels without making demands from complainant, direct the OP No.2 to 4 to compensate the complainant for failure of delivery of possession of the said flat with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on advance amount of Rs.9,00,000/-, direct the OP No.1 to 4 to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards mental agony, harassment, cost of litigation and such other reliefs.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

 Complainant stated that OP NO.1 is financial institution which is into providing loan services to customers, OP NO.2 is construction company to which OP No.3&4 are the proprietors/directors/partners. Complainant submits that OP No.2 through OP No.3&4 (here after referred as OP No.2 only, in place of ‘through OP No.3&4’) had acquired G.P.A executed from the parties to “agreement of sell”, executed on sale agreement dated 20.04.2017 to the complainant, for that complainant had made payment of Rs.9,00,000/- towards the purchase of flat NO.407, 3^rd floor, Sai Residency, Komaghatta road, near Bande Mutt, Kengeri, Satellite town, Bangalore by way of cash to OP No.2, out of total sale consideration of Rs.45,00,000/- through OP No.3 & 4. The same has acknowledged in the agreement above and also the same has revealed in cash receipt. OP No.2 had informed the complainant that they could arrange the loan for the above flat passed on the pre-EMI, subvention scheme wherein the builder will pay the EMI amount to OP No.1 till the project is finished and possession of flat is given to complainant. Further it was informed by OP NO.2 that they have better understanding with OP No.1 which will help in facilitating loan for above mentioned flat.

3. The complainant further stated that on 20.04.2017 construction agreement was entered between OP No.2 through OP No.3 & 4 and the complainant for the construction and subsequently purchased flat No.407, Sai Residency, Kengeri, Satellite town, Bangalore. In this regard a tripartite agreement was entered between the OP NO.1 & 2 (represented by OP No.3 & 4 as directors/managing partners) and the complainant on 18.05.2017 for the loan amount of Rs.36,00,000/-. The same was sanctioned and OP NO.1 had disbursed to OP No.2 a total sum of Rs.32,40,000/-. The complainant further stated that OP No.2 had agreed to deliver the apartment to complainant on or before 24 months from the date of construction agreement and 6 months of grace period. OP No.2 kept on convincing and promising the complainant that they need little more time to finish the project/construction and they will deliver the said premise to the complainant and also execute a registered sale deed in favour of complainant. In accordance to the construction agreement and the agreement to sale, he further submits that OP No.2, 3, 4 not only failed to deliver the same on stipulated time but utter dismay of complainant, that the OP NO.2 represented by OP No.3 & 4 even stopped from entertaining the calls of complainant and never answered back to the calls made by the complainant. He further submits that he paid EMI to the down of Rs.85,475/- towards loan above and builder has paid EMI to the down of Rs.5,65,524/- to OP No.1.

4. Complainant further stated that after a while OP No.1 started to send letters demanding the EMI amount from the complainant periodically. In this regard complainant issued the E-mail communication to OP No.1 asking that he builder/OP No.2 to 4 have failed to hand over the possession of the property and that in spite of several attempts by complainant, OP No.2 to 4 fail to answer or respond to the grievance of the complainant. In vide letter dated 31.03.2021, again on 04.05.2022 complainant had informed the OP No.1 about the developments and requested OP No.1 to exercise its lein/charge on about flat and recovering the due amount by way of sale proceedings of the said flat above. Complainant also stated that he issued a withdrawal letter to the OP NO.3 & 4 informing them about withdrawal from the said agreement and requesting to refund the remaining amount along with interest. On 11.07.2022 on final letter sent to OP NO.1 by bringing to its notice that OP No.2 to 4 have fallen back on the delivery of above mentioned flat and requesting OP NO.1 to recover the due amount by way of sale proceedings of the said property. In response to the letter dated 11.07.2022 OP NO.1 issued reply on 18.08.2022, wherein OP has leveled allegations against complainant without acknowledging the terms of the tripartite agreement. It is further submitted that in the notice above OP NO.1 has accused the complainant of being chronic defaulter and has also insisted complainant to adhere to the contention of the tripartite agreement.

5. Aggrieved by the allegations in the notice, the complainant left with no such option, caused a legal reply notice on 07.09.2022 wherein the complainant had refuted each and every allegations of the OP No.1 and reminded the OP that complainant is acting in accordance with terms and conditions of tripartite agreement. In fact it is OP No.1 who has fail to adhere the terms of tripartite agreement. Complainant alleged OP No.1 to 4, have failed to act in accordance with the terms prescribed under construction agreement, agreement to sale and tripartite agreement. Further alleged that plane perusal, along with the agreement to sale and construction agreement would reveal that OP has provided the said agreement above the project and other interests and to sought their needs alone at the cost of complainant. On plane perusal of the tripartite agreement, reveals that the liability of making payment to OP No.1 falls on shoulder of OP NO.2 to 4 not on complainant. OP No.1 over conveniently has neglected the terms of tripartite agreement and has issued notice dated 18.08.2022, the complainant to meet the unjust terms towards the EMI amount which amounts to Unfair Trade Practice and deficiency in service from OP No.1 to 4. Hence complainant approached this commission to get relief for his grievance and sought directions as above.

6. Notice issued to OP No.1 to 4, which were duly served on OPs, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its statement of objection. OP No.2 to 4 were absent on the date of appearance, hence OP No.2 to 4 placed Ex-parte.

7. OP No.1 stated in its version that complaint filed by the complaint is vexatious and not maintainable neither in law nor on the facts. OP No.1 also contends that complainant is barred by the limitation, since OP No.1 sanctions the loan to the complainant on 21.04.2017 and the agreement executed by complainant on 20.04.2017. The complaint filed by the complainant, involves several complcated facts, cannot be decided in the summary proceedings. OP No.1 denied all the allegations made by the complainant. It also alleged that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties to the complaint, CIBIL authorities are necessary parties to the complaint for complete and effectual adjudication of the complaint. Complainant has filed this complaint with the malafide intention to make unlawful gains to himself and caused loss to the OP No.1.

8. OP No.1 admits that, complainant approached LIC Housing Finance Limited for housing loan of Rs.36,00,000/- for purchase of flat No.47, Sai Residency, Kengeri, Bangalore. After considering the loan application dated 30.03.2017 of the complainant, OP No.1 sanctioned housing loan of Rs.36,00,000/- subject to the terms and conditions of the loan sanction letter dated 21.04.2017. It also admits that as security for the repayment of aforesaid loan the complainant as amount other documents executed loan and agreement, tripartite agreement and deposited the original sale agreement, construction agreement with the OP No.1. Subsequently OP NO.1 disbursed an amount of Rs.32,40,000/- to OP No.2 i.e. M/s Sri Sai Builders and Developers on 25.04.2017, complainant has agreed to repay loan in 300 EMI and to pay floating rate of interest at the rate of 8.70% p.a. from the date of release of loan. In the event of default in repayment of loan, complainant has agreed to pay an additional interest at the rate of 2% p.a. on defaulted istallments. OP No.1 contends that complainant is chronic defaulter in the matter of repayment of principal loan installments with interest. In spite of several letters, requests and demands the complainant failed to pay the loan due’s to OP No.1. According to OP No.1, as on 03.12.2022 the complainant is liable to pay Rs.48,79,698/- to OP No.1 towards loan due’s in respect of loan account NO.410100008451. OP No.1 further contends that as per clause 16 in the event of default by seller, the purchaser is entitled to enforce specific performance of sale agreement.

9. In the version, OP NO.1 stated with regard to paragraph No.5 of complaint, the complainant has entered into a construction agreement dated 20.04.2017 with OP No.2 to 4 wherein OP No.2 to 4 agreed to build and complete schedule ‘F’ property for a contract price of Rs.27,00,000/- i.e., flat bearing No.407, at 3^rd floor, 2 BHK, on schedule-D property having super built up area of 1055 sq.ft, including among other car parking space. As per clause 5.3 in case of delay in delivery of the apartment by the builder the complainant is entitled to damages of Rs.7.50/- per Sq.Ft. super built up area per month of delay till delivery. As per clause 17.1 in the event of default by the builder and purchaser is entitled to enforce specific performance of the Construction Agreement. With regard to the paragraph No.6 of complaint, OP No.1 has sanctioned loan of Rs.36,00,000/- to the complainant. The complainant has executed loan agreement and tripartite agreement as security for the loan and thereafter Rs.32,40,000/- loan was released. In case the remedy if complainant is to seek for specific performance of sale agreement and construction agreement against OP NO.2 to 4 before Civil Court and not to seek any relief against OP NO.1 in the above complaint. OP No.1 denied the averments made in the complaint that complainant has so far paid EMI of Rs.89,475/- and builder has paid EMI of Rs.5,55,524/-. Hence OP No.1 stated that there is no deficiency of service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of OP No.1 and prays to dismiss the complaint with the exemplary cost.

10. At this stage, complainant filed affidavit evidence along with 7 documents which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19 including Certificate U/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Subsequently One J. Arokia Ezhil Nilavan, authorized person of OP NO.1 adduced evidence and filed 6 documents which are marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.6. Both the counsel filed written arguments on behalf of their parties, we perused the documents on record and pass the order on merits.

11. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPs?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iii) What order?

12.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:- Affirmative.

Point No.2:- Partly Affirmative.

Point No.3:- As per the final order.

                      REASONS

13. Point No.1&2:- These points are inter-connected to each other and for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up together for common discussion.

14. It is not disputed that complainant has entered into an agreement to sale on 20.04.2017 executed by OP No.2. It is also not disputed that complainant has paid Rs.9,00,000/- towards the purchase of flat No.407, 3^rd floor, Sai Residency, Komaghatta road, near Bande Mut, Kengeri Satellite town, Bangalore by way of cash to OP No.2 out of total sale consideration of Rs.45,00,000/- through OP No.3&4. The same has acknowledged in the agreement and also issued cash receipts which are at Ex.P.2 & Ex.P.3 dated 10.02.2017 and 10.04.2017 respectively. As complainant stated in his complaint that OP No.3&4 had informed complainant that they can arrange the loan for above flat based on pre-EMI subvention scheme, wherein the builder will pay the EMI to OP No.1 till the project is finished and possession of flat is given to complainant and even OP No.3 & 4 informed that they have better understanding with OP NO.1 which will help in facilitating loan for the above stated flat. Based on the representation made by OP NO.3&4, complainant entered into an agreement between OP No.2 through OP NO.3&4 on 20.04.2017 in construction of the above mentioned flat at Sai Residency project of OP No.2. With regard to the loan complainant entered into tripartite agreement between OP No.1 and OP No.2 to 4 and complainant on 18.04.2017 which is at Ex.P.5 for the loan amount of Rs.36,00,000/-. The same was sanctioned and OP No.1 has disbursed to OP NO.2 total sum of Rs.32,40,000/-. Ex.R.4 is loan sanction letter dated 21.04.2017. OP No.2 to 4 had agreed to deliver the said apartment on or before 24 months from the date of construction with a grace period of 6 months. The same has revealed in the construction agreement which is at Ex.P.4 admitted by OP No.2 to 4. It means by end of 2019 OP No.2 was supposed to handover the possession of constructed flat to the complainant as agreed in the agreement. But OP NO.2 to 4 did not take necessary actions with regard to the same. Hence, complainant alleged that deficiency of service on the part of OP NO.2 to 4 and also with regard to the EMI notices received by complainant by OP No.1, is opposed by him. Since OP NO.2 to 4 has agreed to pay the EMI till possession of flat is handed over to the complainant will be paid by OP No.2 to 4. Complainant’s grievance is about the same when the OP has not given possession of flat, complainant is not liable to pay EMI as he agreed upon. In the said tripartite agreement revealed that complainant has paid Rs.9,00,000/- towards the property and the balance of Rs.36,00,000/- out of Rs.45,00,000/- will be borrowed from OP NO.1 finance company and the same has been disbursed to OP No.2 directly.

15. It is pertinent to note that the documents produced by the complainant, revealing the act and the attitude of OP NO.1 to 4 as complainant alleged in his complaint. The said documents is an agreement of sale entered between OP No.2 (represented by OP No.3 & 4) and one Mr. Ramesh Parakh which is executed on 09.10.2015 with regard to the same property i.e. flat No.407, Sai Residency, Kengeri Village, Bangalore South Taluk. The agreement between the parties for the total sale consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- with Car parking area in the basement floor and super built up area on 1055 sq.ft. The complainant also produced an encumbrance certificate obtained for the period of 01.01.2012 to 17.12.2023. After perusing this above mentioned documents it clearly exhibits that OP No.2 has executed agreement of sale with another person prior to the complainant i.e. on 09.10.2015, subsequently OP No.2 executed agreement to sale with a complainant on 20.04.2017 without disclosing the facts and circumstances, OP No.2 to 4 entered into an agreement with complainant by keeping him in a dark and exploited his wish to have property in Bangalore. No doubt it is an Unfair Trade Practice which should be curbed while such complainant’s files the cases before the court of law.

16. It is also deficiency of Service & Unfair Trade Practice on the part of OP NO.1 while sanctioning loan in the name of complainant by entering into agreement with builder and complainant. It is best known to OP NO.1 that the reason behind sanctioning the loan amount on the property which was already sold to the 3^rd person in the year 2015 itself. It was onus responsibility of OP NO.1 to verify the documents pertains to the property, prior to sanction loan amount to the complainant. Considering the statement stated in the complaint that OP No.2 through OP No.3&4 was informed that they have better understanding with OP NO.1 which will help in facilitating the loan for the above stated flat. While complainant was shown his interest to avail loan to purchase the said flat. The above statement of complainant and the act of OP No.1 to 4 together exhibiting the malafide intention behind sanctioning the loan and also not give possession of flat to the complainant, since 2017 to 2023, which was supposed to handover by the end of 2019. OP No.1 to 4 are intentionally acted with a mutual understanding has kept the complainant in dark without providing any information about the status of flat and with regard to handover of possession. With a knowledge of all the above OP NO.1 has kept on sending notices to complainant for the repayment of loan, is also with a malafide intention.

17. Apart from the above discussion and also after perusing the documents on record, Ex.P.5 clause 2 of a tripartite agreement discloses, that “the builder shall maintain a support again for the borrower and shall adjust the amount advanced by OP NO.1 against consideration/purchase price of the property agree to be purchased by the borrower. The property shall form a part of security about using loan agreed by OP NO.1 in the hands of builder till the sale deed is executed in favour of the borrower” (borrower is complainant in this case).

18. From clause 3 to 9 of tripartite agreement mentioned below is as it is in itolic. The remaining balance amount, if there be any payable to the builder in excess of the loan so granted to the borrower, shall be paid by the borrower directly to the builder on demand by the builder. After completion of the property, the builder shall execute the necessary sale deed and get it registered in favour of the borrower and thereafter shall hand over the said registered sale deed directly to LICHFL. It is further agreed and understood by the borrower that till such time the said registered sale deed is not handed over to LICHFL, the original registration receipt issued by the concerned registering authority in respect of the said registration shall be deposited with LICHFL immediately after the registration of the said sale deed.

19. The builder shall not hand over the actual and physical possession of the property to the borrower before execution and registration of the said sale deed and the original registered deed shall be submitted to LICHFL directly by the builder or the borrower, which shall be kept by LICHFL as a security for repayment of their loan, interest and other incidental charges towards perfection of its security interest for the said loan.

20. That if the borrower desired to withdraw his application for the allotment of the said flat/dwelling unit or if he fails to pay the balance amount representing the difference between the loan sanctioned by LICHFL and the actual purchase price of the flat/dwelling unit, or in case of death of the borrower, or in case the agreement for sale of the property is cancelled, the entire amount advanced by LICHFL along with interest, additional interest and any other charges accrued on the loan to LICHFL will be refunded forthwith by the builder to LICHFL by the borrower for purchase of the property. The builder will first after refunding all amounts to LICHFL as aforesaid refund to the borrower or his legal representatives as the case may be, the balance of the amounts, if any, remaining with the builder after forfeiting such amount as may be recoverable from the borrower in accordance with the provisions applicable and thereupon all and every interest the borrower or his heirs may have in the property shall cease, provided however that in the event of the death of the borrower, if the legal heirs of the borrower immediately deposit with the builder the amounts refunded  to LICHFL as provided hereinabove and undertake to pay to the builder al such further sum or sums as would have been payable by the borrower in accordance with the terms of the said agreement for sale and the rules in force, the builder may, in its discretion, continue with the performance of the contract.

21. That in the event of cancellation of the allotment by the builder, the builder shall at first refund the LICHFL the entire amount paid by LICHFL together with the interest, additional interest and any other charges as quoted by LICHFL by adjusting it against the money received from the borrower to the builder. It is further specifically provided and agreed that in case of cancellation of the agreement for sale, the builder shall not nor be entitled to transfer or sell the property to another person till such time the entire amounts advanced by LICHFL is refunded by the builder to LICHFL. Until such time the property shall remain charged in favour of LICHFL.

The builder hereby expressly consents that LICHFL shall have lien on the aforesaid flat/dwelling unit and the borrower may furnish the said flat/dwelling unit as a security for the loan to be obtained by the borrower from LICHFL.

22. The parties shall abide by the terms and conditions of this Tripartite Agreement and the agreement for sale and the allotment letter executed between the borrower and the builder. If the borrower commits breach of any of the terms and conditions of the said agreements and as a result thereof, if allotment of the said flat/dwelling unit is cancelled, the builder shall be entitled to exercise its right to forfeit the amount in terms of the said agreement/allotment letter. However, the dues of LICHFL will first be cleared by the builder and the dues of LICHFL shall have the first charge on the property. That in case the borrower commits a breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement by his/her/their/its failures to pay remaining balances to the builders or fails to obtain the necessary sale deed and get it registered from the builder and/or thereafter fails to create the mortgage in favour of LICHFL within a reasonable time, then LICHFL shall be entitled to enforce forthwith its lien on the flat/dwelling unit and recover its dues out of the sale proceeds of the property and thereafter the builder shall be entitled to deal with the balance of the sale proceeds in accordance with their right and the provisions of law.

23. Upon going through the above clauses of tripartite agreement it clearly reveals that builder is held responsible for the loan amount availed by complainant towards purchase of the flat till the sale deed is executed in favour of the complainant. In this particular case OP NO.2 to 4 has not executed sale deed of the said flat in the name of complainant till the date of filing this complaint, when the OP is supposed to handover the possession by the end of 2019 as per their agreement, till 2022 September, OP No. 2 to 4 neither handed over the possession of flat nor paid the EMI’s towards the re-payment of loan amount nor disclosed any status of the flat to the complainant. It is resulted into notices received by complainant by OP NO.1 for the re-payment of loan amount. As complainant stated in his complaint that complainant has paid Rs.89,475/- which is at Ex.P.6 towards loan and has paid EMI of Rs.5,65,524/- by builder, when the OPs has evade the phone calls from the complainant when he intent to enquire about the status of flat and its hand over process. Subsequently complainant started receiving notices from OP NO.1 for the re-payment of loan amount. With no other option, complainant sent letter to OP NO.1, bank manager on 31.03.2022, 04.05.2022 which are at Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.9 requested that to recover the Home Loan account by auctioning the property. We observed that it was the important clause NO.9 in the tripartite agreement in case of failure in repayment of loan amount, the said flat could be auctioned and the amount will be refunded to OP NO.1 firstly. Accordingly complainant sought the relief for repayment of loan from OP NO.1 by auctioning property and recover the loan amount as agreed by OP No.2 to 4. Complainant also written a letter on 29.07.2022 which is at Ex.P.11 addressed to directors of OP NO.2 who are OP NO.3 & 4 in this case expressed that he wish to withdraw all the agreements executed between him and OP NO.2 to 4. OP No.2 to 4 has not responded to the said letter even after the receipt of this letter. Later on 11.07.2022 complainant again written a letter to OP NO.1 which is at Ex.P.13, elaborately explained about the loan amount, the amount paid to builder in advance and also he requested OP NO.1 to recover the loan amount along with interest from the builder since he is liable to pay and also not executed sale deed in favour of him. On 18.08.2022 OP NO.1 caused legal notice to complainant which is at Ex.P.15, in turn on 07.09.2022 complainant replied to the legal notice of OP NO.1.

24. In the version of OP NO.1 he denied the amount received by complainant for sum of Rs.89,475/- and Rs.5,65,524/- from builder. Complainant proves the payment made to OP NO.1 in Ex.P.6 of Rs.89,475/-. He also produce documentary evidence in Ex.P.18 about the payment made towards housing loan to OP No.1. However OP No.1 received Rs.89,475/- and also Rs.5,65,524/- toward loan amount but OP NO.1, has not produced any cogent evidence to disprove the receipt of amount. In view of the tripartite agreement, OP No.1 has an option to recover the loan amount with interest by auctioning the said flat.

25. It is pertinent to note that OP No.1 is regularly sending EMI notices for the Repayment of loan amount is not fair and it is unjust. Whatever amount remained balance to recover the loan amount, OP No.1 can collect through OP No.2 to 4 either by way of selling the property or by auctioning the said flat. When there is no flat of complainant, harassing him to repay the amount of loan amount by sending notices is unfair and unjust and also it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP NO.1, when OP No.1 is also a party to tripartite agreement, he is well aware about the action left to him for recovery. Instead of sending notices to builder, OP No.1 is regularly forwarding notices to the complainant amounts to Unfair Trade Practice. Though OP NO.1 failed in its duties to verify the documents before sanctioning loan, is its fault. No fault of complainant, harassing for repayment of loan is obliviously an Unfair Trade Practice. It might resulted to lead negative affect on the CIBIL score of complainant. Since, it is mistake of OP NO.1, while sanctioning loan and the recovery of loan was well known to OP No.1, leads to the CIBIL score of complainant, is not fair. Hence, OP No.1 has to write a letter to CIBIL authority to correct the same favorable to complainant and same has to forward to complainant.

26. OP No.2 to 4 agreed to deliver, flat within 2 years with grace period of 6 months that ends in the year 2019 itself. When OP NO.2 to 4 fails to handover the possession of flat to complainant they are liable to pay the EMI as mentioned in the agreement. Hence it obliviously caused hardship, mental agony to the complainant without any fault on him. Therefore they are liable to compensate him by refunding Rs.9,00,000/- to complainant which he paid towards advance amount, also liable to pay Rs.89,475/- which he paid as installment for 3 months to the OP NO.1. with interest OP No.2 to 4 are also liable to pay the due amount to OP NO.1 towards the loan amount sanctioned in favour of complainant to purchase the same, and this commission directed to OP No.1 to issue NOC to complainant within 60 days from this order.

27. Having knowledge about all the above discussions, OP No.1 to 4 deliberately developed hopes about owning house in Bangalore and exploited his innocence though he communicated through letter correspondence with OP No.1 to 4 for auctioning the property and close his loan account, they have not responded to take any necessary action about the same. It all shows their intention to play with such innocent consumers who wish to have a shelter in Bangalore. OP No.2 to 4 neither appeared to defend their case nor produced any evidence, hence the allegation made by complainant in this case are unchallenged against them. Therefore, OP No.1 to 4 have caused deficiency of service and indulging in Unfair Trade Practice might have caused financial loss, mental agony and hardship to the complainant. Therefore they are liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to complainant and to repay Rs.9,89,475/- with an interest at the rate of 10% p.a. and OPs made him to approach this commission by incurring cost on filing this complaint. Hence they are liable to pay Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation.

28. Under Consumer Protection Act provision all the consumers might have not approached this commission except the complainant when such Unfair Trade Practice brought before the notice of Consumer commission, to curb such activities U/S 39 (1) (g) under Consumer Protection Act 2019, OP No.1 to 4 are penalized by imposition of Rs.1,00,000/- as punitive damages which should be remitted the Consumer Welfare Fund and this must be a lesson to OP NO.1 to 4, not to repeat the same.

29. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

                                   ORDER

1. Complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act, is hereby allowed in part.
2. OP NO.1 is directed to stop making demands of EMI from the complainant.
3. OP No.2 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay due amount to the OP No.1 and close the loan account in the name of complainant with     OP No.1. OP No.1 shall issue NOC to complainant.
4. OP NO.2 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.9,89,475/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of 20.04.2017 till its realization.
5. OP NO.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.25,000/- to cost of litigation within 45 days from the date of order failing which OPs are directed to pay interest at 12% p.a. on Award amount from the date of order till realization.
6. OP No.1 to 4 shall pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards punitive damages U/S 39 (1) (g) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, remitted to Consumer Welfare Fund, within 45 days from this day
7. Furnish the copy of order and return the extra copies of pleading and documents to the parties, without cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 20^th day of JANUARY, 2024)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;