AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Challenge in this revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act (in short "the Act") is to the order dated 7.2.2013 in First Appeal No.941 of 2011 filed on State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (in short "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the State Commission concurred with the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Bank.
The brief facts as set out in the Complaint are that the Complainant took a home loan from the OP/HSBC Bank for an amount of Rs.11,05,000/- in the name of Rohit Jindal and Rs.80,000/- in the name of Jagdish Prasad. The Complainant averred that while sanctioning the loan, he was informed that there would be no processing fee, insurance, zero balance savings account, etc. The loan amount was to be repaid in 175 installments of Rs.14,500/- each. He was also informed by the Bank that there would be no foreclosure charges if he discharges his loan within six months. The EMIs were deducted from his account on floating rate of interest.
It is pleaded by the Complainant that without his knowledge, an insurance policy was taken by the Bank, on the housing loan account, for a sum of Rs.1,14,507.97/- and EMIs of the same were deducted from his account. The Complainant brought to the notice of the Bank that higher EMIs were being charged than what was promised and thereafter the Complainant decided to close his account and discharged the entire loan amount and on 7.12.2008 the complainant had written a letter to the Bank for closing this loan account. The Complainant averred that he had requested the Bank to give a statement of the loan account to which the OP replied on 30.12.2008 stating that an amount of Rs.12,43,623/- was due. Complainant had given two cheques to the OP Bank on 31.12.2008 for an amount of Rs.12,43,623/- and Rs.10,00,000/- totaling Rs.12,43,623/- and requested the OP Bank to return the blank cheques bearing his signatures and also the NOC. After repeated requests, the Bank had returned the NOC and the cheques to him on 21.2.2009. It is pleaded by the Complainant that though he had discharged the entire loan amount on 31.12.2008, still an amount of Rs.15,774/- was charged on 15.1.2009 towards EMI. The Complainant had an account balance of Rs.20,540/- and he had issued a cheque to M/s Durga Tea Co. for Rs.19,700/- but the same was dishonoured because of which the Complainant had to bear a loss of Rs.75/-. The Complainant informed the OP Bank that even after payment of the entire loan, EMIs and a zero balance amount of Rs.842.70 was being deducted, which is unjustified. It is further pleaded by the Complainant that the OP Bank did not provide the original documents including the two cheques of ICICI Bank and the complainant had to bear the loss as he had to pay the interest of Citi Bank and PL of ICICI Bank. It is averred by the complainant that the insurance premium of Rs.1,14,507.97 and the policy was taken without his permission and despite repeated requests for refund of these, unjustly charged amounts, the Bank did not respond. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the OP to pay the HLPP charges of Rs.1,14,,507/-, extra payment made with respect to EMIs, cheque dishonor amount of Rs.75, foreclosing charges of Rs.20669/-, zero balance based amount of Rs.6,000/-, damages of Rs.41,000/-, compensation for sending repeated reminders and other litigation costs totalling to Rs.1,98,252/-.
The OP Bank filed their written version before the District Forum stating that the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the home loan agreement and that they had never assured the complainant that processing fees, surcharge at the time of closing the loan, zero balance savings account, would not be charged. After the complainant foreclosed the housing loan account with the OP Bank, the zero balance savings account facility was not granted to him and the savings bank account was changed to normal account because of which, the zero balance charges were levied accordingly. It is averred that as far as insurance is concerned and the loan agreement is signed by the complainant, the complainant had also signed the additional housing insurance policy agreement. Whatever deductions have been made towards EMIs, insurance premium and towards rate of interest, were only according to the terms and conditions laid down in the loan agreement. It is stated that both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions and that the deduction of Rs. 1,14,507.97/- has been made from the insurance premium legally and that the schedule of payment was also provided to the Complainant at the beginning of the loan account. The Complainant had taken loan from Citibank and paid off the entire amount to the Opposite Party-Bank and according to the Rules, after completing the procedure of closure of loan, the documents were to be returned to the Complainant.
It is further pleaded by the Opposite Party that on 15.1.2009, an additional EMI was received by them which is immediately credited back to the same account on 19.1.2009. As far as the question of deduction of Rs. 842.70/- arises, it has already been deducted earlier and the facility of a zero balance was provided to him only as long as he had the loan account with the Bank. It is agreed by the Petitioner that the account balance of OP as on 31.12.2008 was Rs.20,514.68/- but subsequently after the Complainant''s account was changed from a zero balance account to a normal account, Rs. 842.70/- was deducted as routine charges and therefore, the account balance was Rs. 18,916.49/- on 30.1.2009 and the cheque the Complainant issued was for Rs. 19,700/- which was more than the available balance in the account and therefore, could not be honoured. It is averred that there is no deficiency of service and they seek for dismissal of the Complaint with costs.
The District Forum vide its order dated 25.2.2011 allowed the Complaint in part observing as follows: "This exhibit clearly showed that complainant appointed the OP Bank as administration in relation to Home Loan protection Policy proposed by TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. and has also consented that in relation to Home Loan request all the details will be provided to the TATA AIG Life Insurance Company. So that, the insurance company may issue a policy. This document however, nowhere clearly depicts that the Insurance Company has actually issued an insurance policy to the same effect. The OP Bank as submitted no proof which depicts or clarifies that any such details of the complainant were actually sent to the Insurance Company or any policy was actually issued in the name of the complainant. Therefore, when it was not established that whether a policy was actually issued or not so as, why was the premium actually charged could not be made clear. Also, it could not be clarified as to for how much amount was the insurance done, for how much time was the policy issued, on what terms and how much was the premium amount fixed at? Also it could not be clarified by the bank that as to when and how did they make to the insurance company, which they had charged from the account of the complainant.
In the view of this forum, the amount that was unnecessarily charged from the account of the complainant of services of the OP Bank.
As far as the question of the excessive amount that was charged as EMI was credit into the account of the complainant. Till where the foreclosure amount of Rs. 20,669.05 has been charged, it is made clear by the Exb. 15 where it is sufficiently described that the complainant along with foreclosure charges as mentioned above were paid to the OP Bank.
How these, charges that have been levied on the complainant or the OP Bank. Therefore, the complainant is partially admitted and the OP Bank is directed that they are to pay to the complainant an amount of:-
HLPP Premium:- Rs. 1,14,507.97
Interest on this amount since 25.11.06 at 6% p.a.
Entire amount charged as Balance Based Charges.
Cheque dishonour amount:- Rs. 75/-
Damages:- Rs. 10,000/-
Litigation charges:- Rs. 1500/-
The above mentioned amount be fully paid vide an account payee cheque within a month and the information on intimation of his be given to the bank".
Aggrieved by the said order, the Bank preferred an Appeal before the State Commission.
The State Commission dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Bank and upheld the order of the District Forum on the ground that there are no documents filed whether such an insurance was actually done, as a copy of the policy is not a part of the record.
Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Complaint is barred by limitation as the amount was deducted in November, 2006 and that the letter written for closure of account was on 17.12.2008 and the account was closed on 31.8.2008. It is observed from the record that even after the closure of the account on 31.12.2008, a sum of Rs. 15,774/- was charged towards EMI and balance amount of Rs. 842.70/- was deducted. Therefore, viewed from any angle, it cannot be stated that the Complaint is barred by limitation.
Learned counsel for the Respondent/Complainant argued that he had never authorized the Bank to take any insurance policy. The material on record shows that total of 13 letters were written wherein the Respondent had complained with respect to deduction of Rs. 1,14,507,97/- . A brief perusal of the record shows that the Policy copy was never filed before the lower Fora and both the Fora have given a concurrent finding of fact that in the absence of issuance of Insurance Policy, deduction of Rs. 1,14,507,97/-, is unjustified. The Bank has admitted to the premium amount; the amount was directly transferred; copy of the Policy was not issued; Insurance Cover Note has also not been filed before the lower Fora. There is no evidence on record to establish that the premium amount was indeed paid by the Petitioner to the Insurance Company and that the Policy was issued.
There is a concurrent finding of fact of both the Fora below and keeping in view the evidence on record and also the Judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. II (2010) CPJ 19 (SC), I do not find it a fit case to exercise our limited revisional jurisdiction.
Hence this Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.