Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd vs Suraj Mohan

This appeal under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is in challenge to the Order dated 04.12.2018 of the State Commission in complaint no. 44 of 2018.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant (the ‘financial institution’) and for the respondents (the ‘complainants’) and have perused the record.

The appeal has been filed with self-admitted delay of 32 days.

Leaned counsel for the financial institution draws attention to the reasons contained in the application for condonation of delay and requests that the delay may be condoned.

Learned counsel for the complainants has no objection to the delay being condoned and the matter being decided on its merits.

In the interest of justice, inter alia having regard to the reasons contained in the application for condonation of delay, as also having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel, and in order to decide the matter on its merits rather than to dismiss it at the threshold of limitation, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

The dispute relates to foreclosure charges amounting to Rs. 91,319/- alleged to have been wrongly charged to the complainants by the financial institution. The State Commission has allowed the complaint.

A perusal of the State Commission’s impugned Order shows that in arriving at its decision it has relied wholly and solely on one particular case being Ajay Partap Singh vs. India Bulls Housing Finance Limited & Anr. Appeal No. 275 of 2017 decided on 28.05.2018. After mentioning that “similar facts” were there in that case as are in the instant case, it has opined that “this case is fully covered by the ratio of judgement in the case of Ajay Partap Singh (supra)” and has accordingly allowed the present complaint. The appraisal made by the State Commission is being reproduced below for ready reference:

Heard Counsel for the parties.

It is grievance of the complainants that foreclosure charges to the tune of Rs.91,319/- were wrongly charged by the opposite party on 27.10.2015, when he shifted his loan account from the opposite party to another company. Counsel for the complainants states that charging of above amount towards foreclosure charges was not justified. He has placed reliance upon judgment of this Commission passed in the case of Ajay Partap Singh Vs. India Bulls Housing Finance Limited & Anr., Appeal No.275 of 2017 decided on 28.05.2018.

We have gone through the cited judgment. Similar facts were there and after discussing various issues and judgments on the subject, it was held that charging of foreclosure charges was not justified.

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate, Counsel for the complainants has failed to show anything to the contrary.

In view of above, we are of the opinion that this case is fully covered by the ratio of judgment in the case of Ajay Partap Singh (Supra).

Accordingly, we allow this complaint and set aside the charging of foreclosure charges to the extent of Rs.91,319/-. The opposite party is directed pay the said amount of Rs.91,319/- to the complainants alongwith interest @8% p.a. (simple) whereof 01.11.2015. Over and above this amount, the opposite party shall also pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants towards mental agony and physical harassment and litigation expenses.

If the aforesaid awarded amount is not so paid by the opposite party to the complainants within 30 days from today, then said amount will be paid by the opposite party alongwith interest @9% p.a. (simple) from the date of default i.e. after expiry of 30 days’ period till the time of actual payment.

Perusal of the Order demonstrates that neither the facts of the case at hand have been discussed, nor any appraisal thereof has been made, nor the reasons to arrive at its conclusion have been given.

Learned counsel for the financial institution submits that the case of Ajay Partap Singh on the sole basis of which the State Commission has passed its present Order had been challenged before this Commission by way of revision petition bearing no. 2548 of 2018 and the Order dated 28.05.2018 of the said case had been stayed by this Commission vide its interlocutory Order dated 20.09.2018. The concerned revision petition is still to be decided by this Commission. The learned counsel further submits that the facts of the present case are quite similar to but there could also be certain dissimilarities with the Ajay Partap Singh case. Learned counsel requests that as such it will be prudent and apt that the present case may be decided by the State Commission on its own facts and merits by passing a fresh Order.

Learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the fact that the Order of the State Commission in Ajay Partap Singh’s case has been stayed by this Commission.

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel, we find it appropriate that the present case may be decided by the State Commission on its own facts and merits in accordance with the law with a fresh self-contained reasoned Order.

The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 26.05.2023.

The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the appeal and to their learned counsel immediately. It is also requested to forthwith communicate this Order to the State Commission by the fastest mode available. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.