Delhi

StateCommission

CC/32/2019

AJAY SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

NASIR AZIZ

31 Jan 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :31.01.2019

Date of Decision : 05.02.2019

COMPLAINT NO.32/2019

In the matter of:

 

Ajay singh

Through G.P.A.,

Shri Jai Prakash Singh,

No.1/10865A, Street No.4,

Subhash Park, Naveen Shahdara,

Delhi-110032.                                                                                   ………Complainant

Versus

 

• Capital Housing Finance Ltd.,

Through its Managing Director,

A-282, Ground Floor,

Defence Colony,

New Delhi-110024.……..Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1. Facts of this case are very interesting. Complainant resides in USA and the complaint has been filed through GPA. The complainant booked unit no.2303 at Tower-B1, Panchsheel Greens-II, Plot No.GH-01A, Sector-16, Greater Noida, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. The complainant  approached OP for sanction of loan vide application dated 03.11.14. Vide letter dated 10.12.14, the same was sanctioned under subvention scheme for 240 months for Rs.23,40,000/- on 23.11.14. The disbursement amount was Rs.21,90,668/-.
2. Complainant paid Rs.1,51,000/- being 5% of the total consideration which was due on 22.11.04. Due to delay in sanctioning of loan, complainant could not deposit the amount on 22.11.14.
3. The OP delayed sanction of loan despite the fact that all documents required for sanction of loan were submitted. Not only this, even after sanction of loan, OP did not deposit the amount with builder, resulting in additional penal interest being levied and paid by complainant.
4. The OP paid the amount to the builder on 04.02.15 i.e. after delay of 74 days. The builder insisted that payment of Rs.82,525/- be made as interest on the delayed payment. Complainant requested OP to pay the said interest, OP kept assuring the complainant that he would get the amount of interest waived by the builder. OP failed to do so. Complainant made the final payment of Rs.7,43,078/- vide receipt dated 09.06.18 which included penal interest.
5. It is the sum of Rs.82,585/- which is penal interest which forms subject matter of the present complaint. The complainant initially filed a complaint in District Forum (New Delhi) which was withdrawn by him on 21.12.18 with permission to file before the State Commission and the complaint was beyond pecuniary jurisdiction. The complainant had mentioned this fact in para-3 of the complaint.
6. Sanction of loan is not a right. The financer/ OP had a discretion to sanction or not  the loan.
7. The sanction was made in Nov. 2014, disbursement was made on 04.02.15. Liability to pay penal interest accrued on 22.11.14 when the payment was to be made to the builder but was not paid. The complaint filed on 11.01.19 is barred by limitation.
8. Counsel for the complaisant drew my attention towards copy of mail dated 27.01.15 which is at page-24. It contains the request to waive of late payment charges in the case of complainant as the payment was delayed from (OP) side due to some technical reason. Even if limitation is counted from the said date, the complaint is barred by limitation.
9. Counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant paid the amount in question vide receipt dated 09.06.18  copy of which is at page-25. To my mind this does not give rise to any cause of action against OP/ financer.
10. Counsel for the complainant also submitted that the complainant had been making repeated requests and correspondence with OP to get the penal interest waived. So cause of action is continuing. I am unable to persuade myself with the arguments. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme  Court in Kandimala vs. National Insurance Company (2009) 7 SCC 768 that correspondence does not extend limitation.
11. The complaint is dismissed as being barred by limitation, in limine.
12. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
13. File be consigned to record room.

 

(O.P. GUPTA)                                                 

     MEMBER (JUDICIAL)