Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/171/2017

Harbhajan Singh Minhas - Complainant(s)

Versus

Area Manager, LIC Housing Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Jashan Preet Singh Gill

24 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/171/2017
Date of Institution	:	23/02/2017
Date of Decision	:	24/09/2018

 

[1]    Harbhajan Singh Minhas S/o Late Sh. Randhir Singh, Resident of H.No.637, Phase 3-A, Mohali.

 

[2]    Harjeet Kaur Minhas W/o Sh. Harbhajan Singh Minhas, Resident of H.No.637, Phase 3-A, Mohali.

…..Complainants

V E R S U S

Area Manager, LIC Housing Finance Limited, SCO 2445-46, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Party

 

CORAM        :	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Jashan Preet Singh Gill, Counsel for Complainants.
	:	Sh. Sumit Batra, Counsel for Opposite Party.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.         The facts of the Consumer Complaint, in brief, are that the Complainants were sanctioned two Housing Loans i.e. (i) No.014009028 for Rs.10,000,00/- on 31.12.2003 at a floating interest rate of 7.75% p.a. and (ii) No.014011187 for Rs.7,000,00/- on 31.10.2005 at a floating interest rate of 7.25% p.a. by the Opposite Party based on the then prevailing market rates. Till 31.12.2016 the Complainants have paid the Opposite Party a total amount of Rs.18,15,314/- against the first loan account and Rs.11,57,942/- against the second loan account. The Complainants have alleged that the Opposite Party acted unfairly and had arbitrarily increased the interest rates to 11.70% - 11.75% p.a. on both the aforesaid loan accounts, thereby had been charging 2.75% excess rate of interest than the prevailing market rates. The Opposite Party had failed to reduce the interest rate of loans of Complainants whenever the prevailing market rates had fallen.  Eventually, the Complainants served a legal notice dated 24.05.2016 upon the Opposite Party, but the same could not materialize. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainants, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, they have filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party filed its written statement pleading that the Complainants were never charged excess rate of interest than the prevailing market rate of interest. The rate of interest was being charged as per the terms & conditions of the loan agreement. As the rate of interest vary as per the market conditions, so whatever was the market condition at that time of sanctioning of the loan, the customer has to pay the rate of interest as per the loan agreement entered into at that very time. On number of occasions the rate of interest was decreased, so the Opposite Party had charged the decreased rate of interest from the Complainants. The Complainants had levelled baseless allegations in order to benefit themselves. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the reply and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainants filed the rejoinder.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for Parties.
7.         On meticulous perusal of the Complaint, we find that following three issues have been raised by the Complainants:-

1. Opposite Party had charged from them a sum of Rs.1125/- for changing the Scheme of Loan from Fixed Rate of Interest to Floating Rate of Interest without any authority/guidelines.
2. Opposite Party had charged from them excess rate of interest above the prevailing market rate of interest at the relevant point of time.
3. The change of floating rate of interest was to be effected w.e.f. 01^st of Jan. and 01^st of July every year as per the Agreement/Terms & Conditions whereas the Opposite Party had effected the change of Floating Rate of interest on different dates.

8.         While dealing with the issue no. (i) above, we find that Opposite Party has produced a letter dated 27.09.2016 written by the Chief Manager (Marketing), LIC Housing Finance Ltd., addressed to all the Regional Manager, Dy. Regional Managers, Managers (Operation), Area Managers & Business Managers, wherein rewriting fees of Rs.1000/- + plus have been mentioned for rewriting of loan amount upto Rs.75 Lacs. Since the Complainants had taken loan less than Rs.75 Lacs, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party was justified in charging the rewriting fees from them.
9.          Regarding the issue no. (ii) above, we find that the loan request was made on floater basis, based on the request made by the Complainants themselves. Moreover, the Complainants have failed to adduce any cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence to show that the Opposite Party had failed to follow the RBI Guidelines or violated the terms and conditions of the Agreement interse them.
10.         For adjudicating the issue no. (iii) above, we have perused the terms & conditions of the Loan Offer Letter issued by the Opposite Party. Para 4(a)(iii) of the said terms & conditions provide that the revised floating rate of interest will be applicable w.e.f. 1^st Jan or 1^st July as the case may be and shall be reviewed every 6 months (January & July) based on the prevailing market conditions. On perusal of Annexure OP-1, which is a loan-wise detail of interest movement, we find that the revised rate of interest has been made applicable w.e.f. 31^st Jan or 31^st July every year, rather than effecting the same w.e.f. 1^st Jan or 1^st July of every year as provided in the terms & conditions. The said act of the Opposite Party to our mind, amounts to deficiency in service and their indulgence into unfair trade practice, which certainly has caused unprecedented physical and mental harassment to the Complainants and forced them to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation. 
11.         In view of the above, the complaint deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the complaint is partly allowed against Opposite Party and it is directed as under:-

 

1. To issue a fresh accounts statement to the Complainants by effecting the revised rate of floating interest w.e.f. 1^st Jan and 1^st July every year and refund, the excess amount charged, if any;
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- to each Complainant, for mental agony and physical harassment caused to them and also for deficiency in providing service and adopting unfair trade practice.
3. To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.15,000/- to the complainants.

 

12.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party. In default, the Opposite Party shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the directions at Sr. No. (ii) & (iii) above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from compliance of the directions as at Sr. No. (i) above.

 

13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
24/09/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”