IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 13.12.2018

Date of Decision : 07.01.2019

COMPLAINT NO.1528/2018

1. Harvin Chadha,

S/o. Shri Jasbir Singh Chadha,

R/o. C-6, First Floor,

Rajouri Garden,

New Delhi-110027.                                            …Complainant No.1

2. Mandeep Chadha,

W/o. Mr. Harvin Chadha,

R/o. C-6, First Floor,

Rajouri Garden,

New Dlhi-110027.                                              ...Complainant No.2                 

Versus

1. Development Credit Bank Ltd (DCB),

7/56, A Set House,

Karol Bagh,New Delhi-110005.                      ......Opposite Party No.1

2. Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd,

1/10B Asaf Ali Road,

Near Delite Cinema,

Asaf Ali Road,

Delhi-110002.

Also at:

3 LSC Pushp Vihar,

New Delhi-110019.                             .....Opposite Party No.2

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?       

                                                                                                Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1. The grievance of the complainants is that they applied for loan to Citi Financial Customer Finance India Ltd., they were sanctioned home equity loan for Rs. 62 Lacs on interest @ 14.25% floating,re-payable in 15 years vide letter dated 31.08.2008. The aforesaid finance company disbursed loan against collateral security by mortgage of residential property no. C-6, First Floor, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027. Value of property is more than Rs. 2 crores. Signature of the complainants were obtained on blank typed or printed papers, filled and unfilled. The complainants made regular payment of EMIs till 2013.
2. The said financial company assigned the loan in favour of OP-1/Development Credit Bank Limited, without prior consent of complainants. They came to know about the assignment vide letter dated 30.05.2013. They were never informed about terms of takeover of the loan by OP-1. On 05.09.2013 they were informed about increase of rate on interest of loan raised, due to prevailing market condition. EMIs were also increased. The complainants made payments towards EMIs till December 2016. Complainant no. 1 suffered huge business loss due to demonetization which was carried on 08.11.2016. Rented shop where in complainant no. 2 was carrying on business of designer boutique was sealed u/s 345A read with Section 491 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act resulting into closer of business.
3. In January, 2017 mother of the complainant suffered a major Hernia disruption, due to which she was admitted in National Heart Institute, Delhi. Major surgery was performed. Because of the financial problems creating by aforesaid circumstances, complainants could not pay EMIs w.e.f. 05.01.2017 to August,2017. On 15.03.2017 three officials of OP-1 visited the house of the complainant to recover EMIs due. They mis-behaved and harassed the complainant. Complainant’s son Sh. Gurshaan Singh Chadha, called PCR and complaint was lodged vide diary no.52B with SHO police station, Rajouri Garden. On 01.04.2017 complainant’s loan facility was classified as NPA. Demand notice u/s 13 (2) Sarfasi Act was served on 03.04.2017. The complainant replied the same on 06.05.2017. Reply was wrongly rejected by OP on 13.05.2017. Receiver was appointed to take physical possession of the property vide court order dated 01.08.2017. To protect dis-posession of the property, complainants filed application u/s 17 (1) Sarfasi Act  before DRT on 11.08.2017. OP was directed not to take physical possession vide order 21.08.2017. New re-payment schedule was made by OP on 09.07.2018.
4. OP is asking for interest @ 10.70% p.a. from new customers seeking loan against property. Thus approx. 4.65% higher interest was being ch