Order No. 16 dt. 04/10/2016
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant applied for house building loan and the loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.90,000/- but actually a sum of Rs.72,000/- was disbursed. The complainant put his signature on some blank documents but no document was provided to the complainant in spite of repeated demand made by the complainant. The complainant requested the o.p. for releasing the balance amount of Rs.18,000/- but the same was not provided and subsequently the o.p. demanded the entire amount of Rs.90,000/-, as such the complainant by filing the case has prayed for the return of the amount of Rs.72,000/- and the charged interest on Rs.89,880/- which was not the actual amount can be claimed by the o.p. Accordingly, the complainant has prayed for the computation of the loan amount in accordance with the RBI norms and necessary directed be given to the o.p. for refund of the excess payment made by the complainant and also prayed for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs towards compensation.
The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that in the year 1996 the complainant availed one home loan which was numbered as HDFC Ltd. Home Loan A/C No.470260727. The o.p. sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.90,000/- and thereafter the complainant entered into a home loan agreement with o.p. and the loan was disbursed accordingly. The o.p. initially disbursed an amount of Rs.72,000/- as part payment of the loan and the complainant fuly availed of the said amount and another Rs.18,000/- scheduled to be delivered but in the mean time complainant defaulted in payment of pre EMI as per the contractual obligation. Such default restrained the o.p. from disbursing the balance payment. The complainant defaulted in payment of the pre EMI for a considerable period of time resulting in substantial sums being cumulated against his home loan account. The o.p. while found that the complainant failed to pay the installment issued a notice on 14.10.96 in favour of the complainant requesting him to make payment. But the complainant did not pay the amount as per the demand notice made by the o.p.
Thereafter complainant through a letter dt.6.2.1998 expressed his inability to clear the dues and requested the o.p. to make an arrangement for recovering of dues through installments, accordingly o.p. rescheduled the loan and adding pre EMI dues and interest dues to the principal amount of Rs.72,000/-. After rescheduling the loan amount the total amount came to Rs.89,880/-. After rescheduling the outstanding EMIs complainant again failed to make the payment, again notice was sent and complainant subsequently sent another letter praying for rescheduling the loan and accordingly the same was rescheduled and complainant further failed to pay the said amount and ultimately on 31.5.03 o.p. sent letter to complainant requesting him to make due and outstanding payment. After several years complainant deposited 5 post dated cheques of Rs.10,000/- each and only one cheque was encashed and in such manner complainant kept on maintaining the non payment of the dues and ultimately filed this case without any cogent ground whatsoever. The complainant has defaulted in making payment of EMIs being the outstanding dues on repeated occasions and as such complainant is now stopped from alleging unfair trade practice. In view of the said fact o.p. has prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant took loan of Rs.90,000/-.
- Whether the o.p. obtained signature of complainant on some blank papers.
- Whether the complainant paid the EMIs regularly.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that though the loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.90,000/- but actually the amount was paid by o.p. of Rs.72,000/- and signature of the complainant was obtained without giving opportunity to the complainant go through the papers. The complainant repeatedly requested the o.p. for disbursement of the loan amount of Rs.18,000/- but o.p. did not pay any heed and subsequently started to threaten the complainant by sending agents, musclemen etc. in order to put pressure upon the complainant for fulfillment of the illegal demand of o.p. Ld. lawyer argued that o.p. did not furnish a correct statement of account. The o.p. actually disbursed Rs.72,000/- and the interest charged on the said amount was Rs.89,880/-. The o.p. continuously demanded EMI of Rs.1684/- instead of the amount of Rs.1552/-. The o.p. obtained 36 cheques from complainant and o.p. claimed that he amount was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.89,880/- and the same was disbursed. But actually the said amount was not given to the complainant. The complainant on various occasions wrote several letters to o.p. but not reply was given as result of which complainant had no other alternative but to seek relief from this Forum. Ld. lawyer also emphasized that complainant had already paid Rs.4,04,869/- and o.p. is further demanded the amount for which complainant had to file this case so that o.p. can be restrained from demanding the inflated amount claimed by o.p.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. argued that the complainant all through failed to pay the installment and he started to pay the installment at his whims and sometimes on the prayer of the complainant the schedule of EMI was rescheduled and the complainant was given opportunity to pay the loan amount and interest but he further failed to pay the amount. In such manner complainant on numerous occasions requested the o.p. to reschedule the payment to be made by complainant including principal amount and interest but complainant all through failed to honour the commitment made by complainant. Ld. lawyer for o.p. submitted a schedule with the BNA wherefrom it appears that the complainant took loan in the year 1998. The loan amount was availed of Rs.72,000/- out of total sanctioned amount of Rs.90,000/-. In the year 1998 the loan rescheduled from Rs.72,000/- to Rs.89,880/- after adjustment of EMIs and interest. Again on the basis of the representation made by complainant, the complainant was given another opportunity in the month of Feb. 2012 and the complainant deposited cheques of Rs.10,000/- for clearance of dues but subsequently withdrawn after encashing of one cheuqe by o.p. The complainant further on 28.3.12 issued cheques of Rs.3000/- but again withdrawn citing a financial distress. In view of such irregularity in payment by complainant and whenever o.p. is going to issue notice under the SERFACIE Act the complainant filed this case in order to get protection from this Forum so that o.p. cannot realize the amount due from the complainant.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it appears that the complainant took loan in the year 1998 and the amount was disbursed to the tune of Rs.72,000/- out of the actual sanctioned amount of Rs.90,000/-. Though the complainant claimed that he was asked by o.p. to put signature on some blank papers but from the materials on record it is found that the complainant used to work as a senior auditor and therefore it is hardly believable that a person having good educational background with the profession as auditor will be forced by the o.p. to put signature on some blank papers and complainant put his signature without going through those papers. Apart from the said fact from the materials on record it is crystal clear that the o.p. bank gave ample opportunities to the complainant to liquidate the loan and various installments were given for the benefit of complainant but the complainant did not avail of all those benefits and he failed to pay the amount as per the schedule which was agreed by the complainant himself and the said schedule was created by o.p. on the prayer of the complainant himself, the plea of the complainant that he had to pay huge amount than that of the principal amount towards the loan had been taken by him but such plea cannot accepted since complainant himself was at fault for not making payment of EMI as scheduled by o.p. after consultation with the complainant the said schedule was prepared but the complainant instead of liquidating the loan amount and interest failed to pay the amount resulting in the huge accumulation of the loan amount plus interest. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above it is crystal clear that the complainant himself created his own problem and now he is coming with this plea that o.p. committed unfair trade practice which cannot be believed and accordingly we hold that the complainant will not be entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.496/2014 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
