Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/278/2019

Amardeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Karanjeet Singh Brar Adv.

03 Jan 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	278/2019
Date of Institution	:	03.05.2019
Date of Decision	:	03.01.2020

 

                                       

                       

 

Amardeep Singh son of Sh.Inderjit Singh r/o # 1070/1, Sector 39-B, Chandigarh.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

Union Bank of India, Branch Office SCF 3, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

…. Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI RAJAN DEWAN,	PRESIDENT
	SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	MEMBER

 

Argued by:-
	Complainant in person. Sh.Naren Pratap Singh, Adv. for the OP.

      

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he availed a housing loan of Rs.48 lakhs in May, 2014 from the OP and is regularly paying the installments without any default.  In December 2018, he was shocked to see the account statement that the OP had added a sum of Rs.8,850/- in the loan account without his consent and knowledge. On enquiry, he was informed that the said amount was on account of lien marking charges of his property. When the complainant approached the Manager as to why the Bank had not imposed the charges at the time of sanctioning the loan, then he replied that there was no such lien marking fee prescribed by the Chandigarh Housing Board at that time.  According to him, the Bank had illegally imposed these charges after a lapse of 4 ½ years of sanctioning the loan. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its written statement, the OP while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that the loan was sanctioned on 28.04.2014 and the Bank had deducted a sum of Rs.8,850/- from the loan account on 21.12.2018 on account of processing charges for obtaining the permission to mortgage/lien in accordance  with the policy of the Chandigarh Housing Board against the complainant’s mortgaged property and as such the complainant has no right  to agitate the amount at this stage.  It has further been pleaded that as per Clause 13 of the terms and conditions of the letter of sanction bank’s lien is to be recorded in the Housing Cooperative Society/Housing Board record.  The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 
3.         We have heard the complainant in person, learned Counsel for the OP and have gone through the documents on record.
4.         After going through the rival contentions of the parties and the documentary evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be accepted because when the complainant availed the housing loan from the bank, there was no lien marking charges in the Chandigarh Housing Board and this fact is corroborated from Annexure C-3 i.e. the information obtained by the complainant under the RTI vide letter dated 01.02.2019 whereby it was intimated to the complainant by the AO-II-cum-CPIO, Chandigarh Housing Board that there was no processing fee for marking the lien on the property in the year 2014.  In the said letter, it was also mentioned that the processing fee of Rs.8850/- including GST for HIG Category flats started applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2018. However, the OP has failed to give any plausible explanation as to why they were failed to mark the lien on the property of the complainant within the reasonable period when there was no lien marking charges. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the Bank is not entitled to recover the processing charges on account of their lapse from the complainant.  
5.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed with a direction to credit the amount of Rs.8,850/- to the loan account of the complainant and to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,500/- to him on account of mental agony and harassment including litigation expenses. This order be complied with by the OP, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the awarded amount shall fetch interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till its actual payment.
6.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced 03/01/2020	Sd/-
	(RAJAN DEWAN) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(PRITI MALHOTRA) MEMBER