ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH Date of Institution : 14.10.2022 Date of Reserve : 15.04.2025 Date of Decision : 13.05.2025

1. L&T Finance Home Loans, Unit No.505 & 506, DLF Tower “B”, District Centre, Jasola New Delhi-110025, through its Director/MD.

2. L & T Finance Home Loans, Plot No.19, House No.223/2, 2^nd Floor, Rani Jhansi Road, Ludhiana, through Puneet Kumar Gaurh, Zonal Coordinator-North cum Divisional Legal Manager-Litigation, presently posted at L&T Finance Ltd., 5^th Floor, DCM Building, 16 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-

110001.

….Appellants/opposite parties Versus Bhoj Raj Goyal son of Sh.Khazanchi Lal, R/o House No.3833/34, Mahavir Jain Colony, Street No.15, Sunder Nagar, Ludhaina.

…..Respondent/complainant First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 12.07.2022 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SBS Nagar, at Camp Court Ludhiana. Quorum:-

Mr.Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Ms.Simarjot Kaur, Member Present:-

For the appellants : Sh.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate For the respondent : None HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/opposite parties-L&T Finance Home Loans & Anr. against the order dated 12.07.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SBS Nagar, (decided at Camp Court, Ludhiana) (in short ‘District Commission’), whereby the complaint filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act (in short ‘the Act’) was partly allowed against the opposite parties and they were directed to refund excess amount received from complainant along with interest @4% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till realization. They were further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation including litigation expenses.

It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.

2. Briefly stated facts of the complaint are that the complainant availed the financial assistance of Rs.4,55,000/- by mortgaging his house and depositing the original title deed with GE Countrywide. Subsequently, Citi Financial Services Ltd., Ludhiana took over the said finance company. The loan was availed @13-/2% per annum and that was to be returned in 120 equal monthly installments, vide Loan Account No.LUDHF04323387 and the last installment was payable on 05.10.2014. The complainant paid all the installments upto 06.10.2014 but on demanding NOC, the opposite parties claimed 24 more installments of Rs.6929/- per month. On committing this deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant filed a consumer complaint bearing No.804 on 26.11.2014 in which the opposite parties appeared. The said complaint was allowed on 09.12.2015 by the District Commission, Ludhiana. The opposite parties filed First Appeal No.111 dated

03.02.2016 and the same was dismissed on 13.05.2016. Thereafter, the execution application was filed by the complainant for compliance of the order, in which the opposite parties appeared and gave the original title deeds, NOC, compensation, however, they concealed the fact from the District Commission that they received 21 EMIs of Rs.6929/- i.e. Rs.1,45,509/- in excess though it has been held that the opposite parties had only to charge interest @13.5% per annum and not more than that. In the execution application, the opposite parties did not return that excess amount. The District Commission while disposing off the execution on 04.08.2017 held that the direction for refund of excess paid amount cannot be passed in the execution and the complainant will have to file separate complaint for refund of the amount. The act of non-refunding the amount of Rs.1,45,509/- despite having knowledge of the orders dated 09.12.2015 and appellate State Commission order dated 13.05.2016 amounts to unfair trade practice, which compelled the complainant to f