In consumer disputes, failure to prove deficiency in service by evidencing proper account management leads to dismissal of claims against financial institutions.

JUDGMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants are the opposite parties in C.C.No.322/2016 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Idukki (the District Commission for short). 2. The respondents 1 and 2 had filed a complaint before the District Commission under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging deficiency in service with respect to a loan availed by them.

3. The averments contained in the complaint in short is that on 24.11.2004, the complainants had availed a housing loan from the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.11.95 lakhs. They have mortgaged 10cents of their landed property, entrusted their salary certificate and LIC policy as additional security. The loan was availed from Weizmann Homes Ltd., which was taken over by L&T Housing Financing Company. They used to collect the EMIs. On 10.10.2010, the complainants had paid a lumpsum amount of Rs.7,00,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs only) towards the loan amount. But the said amount was not accounted by the opposite party at the proper time. So the complainant had to suffer huge loss as penal interest. The opposite parties had also charged additional charges for the principal amount, holding the collected amount without adjusting the loan amount is an unfair trade practice. Though the complainant had repaid Rs.22,14,000/-(Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Fourteen Thousand only) the statement of account issued by the opposite parties would show that an amount of Rs.4.60 lakhs is outstanding in the loan amount towards principal amount.

4. The complainant had requested the opposite parties to adjust the matured amount of the LIC Policy account to the loan account. But the opposite parties never adjusted the same. The complainants had filed a petition to the opposite parties to issue a true and correct statement of account of the loan with a request for refund of the excess amount collected. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complaint was filed.

5. The opposite party though received notice from the District Commission did not file any written version. So they were set ex-parte.

st

6. The 1 complainant has testified before the District Commission as PW1.

Exhibits P1 to P6 were also marked. On evaluating the evidence let in by PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P6, the complaint was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to hand over the complainants a true and correct statement of account pertaining to the housing loan, to settle the loan account and refund the excess amount collected from the complainant. A further direction was also issued to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs of the proceedings. A default clause was also incorporated to pay interest @12% in the event of non-compliance of the direction. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this appeal has been filed.

7. Heard the counsel for the appellants as well as the respondents. Perused the records.

8. Admittedly, the complainants had availed a loan of Rs.11.95 lakhs on

24.11.2004. Exhibit P1 is a letter dated 08.09.2016 issued by the opposite party stating that the complainants were very irregular in paying the loan instalment and as on 07.09.2016, an amount of Rs.23,479/-(Rupees Twenty Three Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Nine only) is outstanding towards the overdue instalments and overdue charges of Rs.11,315.8/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Three Hundred and Fifteen and Eight paise only). Hence, the complainant had to remit Rs.34,794.90/-(Rupees Thirty Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Four and Ninety paise only) and the entire future instalments. Thus, a total sum of Rs.4,59,521.31/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty One