Haryana

Karnal

CC/256/2020

Naresh Kumar Jashoria - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Area Manager, LIC Housing Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Bhavishay Sahni

26 Feb 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 256 of 2020

                                                          Date of instt.22.07.2020

                                                          Date of Decision 26.02.2021

 

Naresh Kumar Jashoria son of Shri Chaman Lal Jashoria resident of House no.16-C, MITC Colony, Karnal.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. The Area Manager, LIC Housing Finance Ltd. SCO no.144, Main Market, Sector-13, Karnal.

2. The Regional Manager, LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.

3. The Chief General Manager, LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Jeevan Parkash IV floor, SIR P.M. Road, Fort Mumbai (Maharastra).

 

                                                                …..Opposite Parties.

 

       Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.      

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present: Shri Bhavishay Sahni counsel for complainant.

               Shri Narender Kumar counsel for opposite parties.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the averments that complainant alongwith his brother namely Udey Kant has purchased one residential house no.2-C, comprised in Khasra no.15/13, having an area of 101 sq. yards situated in village Naggal, Tehsil & District Ambala from Rajiv Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar sons of Shri Kailash Chander residents of House no.15 Shiv Partap Nagar Ambala Cantt being the power of attorney holder of Krishan Lal Narang s/o Ram Dass Narang, r/o house no.1134/1 behind Nari Niketan, Nakodar road Jallandar through registered sale deed bearing no.1507/1 dated 19.01.2009.

2.             Further, at the time of purchase the aforesaid house the complainant alongwith his brother Udey Kant had obtained a house loan of Rs.10,00,000/- under the scheme of Griha Parkash from the OPs vide loan application no.14912583, loan number 14015009755. The said loan amount is to be paid in 180 equal installments of approximately Rs.10,600/-. At the time of sanctioning the loan amount the official of the OPs told the complainant that the life of the complainant and his brother Udey Kant and the aforesaid property has also been insured, in case of any mis-happening with any of the borrower then in that case the whole remaining loan amount would be adjusted from the life sum assured and the insurance premium amount used to deduct every month from the installments automatically.

3.             Further, Udey Kant brother of the complainant had died on 13.06.2010 on account of brain hemorrhage. After the death of Udey Kant the complainant alongwith his mother namely Geeta Devi approached in the office of the OPs and submitted the death certificate and other relevant document with a request to adjust the remaining loan amount from the death claim of Udey Kant as per the assurance given by the official of the OP at the time of sanctioning the loan. The official of the OPs assured the complainant that they would certainly do the needful, but the official of the OPs have not taken any action on the request of the complainant and his mother. Thereafter, on 20.12.2020 the mother of the complainant moved an application to the OPs with a request to write off the housing loan on account death of Udey Kant.

4.             Further, the life of the complainant and his brother was insured by the OPs at the time of sanctioning the loan amount and after the death of the life assured, the OPs neither paid the death claim amount nor adjusted the death claim amount in the loan account. Smt. Geeta Devi mother of deceased Udey Kant approached the official of the OPs many time and requested to write off the loan in the name of Udey Kant, but OPs neither paid the death claim nor adjusted the same into the loan account and as such the complainant is entitled to recover the death claim amount alongwith interest from the OPs. Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs so many times for adjustment of the loan account of deceased Udey Kant but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. Due to this act of OPs complainant suffered mental pain, agony, harassment as well as financial loss. In this way there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

5.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action; barred by limitation and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, since the loan amount to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- was disbursed to the satisfaction of complainant and his deceased brother as borrower/s in the month of January 2009 under loan agreement no.14015009755. The loan amount was disbursed and utilized by borrower/s. The borrower/s are duty bound to repay the same as per the terms and conditions of loan agreement, which essentially directs that time is essence of contract and monthly installments towards the availed loan has to be paid in strict discipline manner without fail and in the event of default to pay the EMI’s, penal interest and other charges shall be levied.

6.             Further, It is pertinent to mention here that No Insurance Policy for protecting/shielding the loan amount was purchased by complainant and or his brother at the time or subsequently. As such the loan amount is payable by complainant and or the legal heirs of deceased. The liability to repay the amount financed by borrower/s is individual and joint and one cannot allowed to take shelter to the fact that since one of the co-applicant has died as such loan is required to be waived off. The loan has been secured by mortgaging the property of borrowers as such in the event of default/s the OPs are duty bound to take legal possession of the property for adjusting the sale proceeds towards outstanding loan.

7.             Further, the complainant has not annexed any insurance policy for substance of his insurance claim nor he has shown any receipt of premium paid towards the purchase of insurance policy. It is further pleaded that no application for condonation of delay has been filed alongwith the complaint. The loan was disbursed in the year 2009 and brother of complainant died in the year 2010, as such cause of action, if any, available to the complainant has already been expired and complainant cannot legally be allowed to file the present time barred complaint without any cause of action. Moreover, in the entire complaint it has not been averred and explained that how the complaint falls under limitation as provided under the Act.

8.              It is further pleaded that the loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant and his brother by OPs against the property purchased by them and same was required to be repaid by way of EMI’s. It is vehemently denied that at the time of sanctioning of loan amount the officials of the OP told the complainant that the life of complainant and his brother and aforesaid property is insured, in case of any mis happening with any of the borrower then in that case the whole remaining amount would be adjusted from the life sum assured and the insurance premium amount used to deduct every month from installment automatically. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             Complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, death certificate Ex.C1, allotment letter Ex.C2, loan detail Ex.C3, loan account statement Ex.C4, notice dated 20.12.2019 Ex.C5, postal receipts Ex.C6 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 10.09.2020 by suffering separate statement.

10.           On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Parmod Kumar Ex.OP1/A, application dated 12.12.2008 Ex.OP1, Schedule (loan agreement) Ex.OP2, Agreement Ex.OP3, Statement of Account Ex.OP4 and Authority Letter Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on 23.10.2020 by suffering separate statement.

11.           After hearing the arguments of both the parties, we firstly decide that whether complaint filed by the complainant is within limitation period or not?

12.           Limitation period for filing the complaint is defined in Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is reproduced as under:-

(1) The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

13.           In the present complaint, the loan was disbursed in the month of January, 2009 and as per death certificate Ex.C1, brother of complainant had expired on 13.06.2010, cause of action, if any, had arisen in the year 2010 but the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 22.07.2020 after the gap of more than ten years. No application for condonation of delay has filed by the complainant and no sufficient cause has been shown for not filing the complaint within limitation period. Hence, as per the provision of Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the present complaint is hopelessly time barred and the same is liable to be dismissed.

14.           In view of above discussion, and without going into any other controversy between the parties, we hereby dismiss the present complaint being time barred. However, complainant is at liberty to take recourse of his grievances with the OP and in that eventuality the OP may consider the same. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:26.02.2021

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

               

        (Vineet Kaushik)                  (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                               Member