Haryana

Karnal

CC/344/2022

Inder Pal Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Head, PNB Housing Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

17 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 344 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.16.06.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:17.05.2024

 

Inder Pal Arora son of Shri Mohan Lal Arora, resident of 205, sector-14, Part-II, Urban Estate, Karnal.

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Branch Head, PNB Housing Finance Limited, SCO 218-219, 1^st floor, Sector-12, Part-I, City Centre HUDa, Karnal-132001.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Complainant in person.

                    Shri  Vineet Rathore, counsel for the OP.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that OP is a Non-Banking Finance Company doing the business of financing having Branch located at SCO: 218-219, 1^st floor, Sector-12, Part-I, City Centre, HUDA, Karnal-132001. The complainant had two loans from the OP, the details are as under:-

1. Loan account no.HOU/KAR/1015/248538 for Rs.5,04,378/-, vide Sanction Letter dated 05.12.2015.
2. Loan Account no.NHL/KAR/0319/669326 for Rs.12,13,183/-, vide Sanction Letter dated 10.04.2019.

                While availing the loan, complainant had opted for floating rate of interest as mentioned in sanction letters, with the intention that in case there is change in the reference rate, the interest rate shall also be changed and the interest rate applicable to the loan shall be in consonance with the latest rates as applicable to the new customers. The complainant opted for the floating rate of interest. However, OP has deceptively kept different reference rates for the loans availed during different periods in such a way that the rate of interest to the borrower should never reduce. In this way the policy of different reference rates fraudulent in nature and designed in such a way that the old customer should always be charged with the higher rate of interest, whatever option of interest rate he has chosen. The reference rate is linked with the Reserve Bank of India’s repo rate and any change in the repo rate affects the reference rate. As one repo rate remain at a single point of time, so keeping different reference rates at same time for different customers is fraudulent and deceptive. For rectification the complainant visited the office of the OP and also sent them a legal notice dated 19.05.2022 and several other communications through email. Recently, vide email dated 30.05.2022, the OP increased the rate of interest by 0.35% due to increase in Reserve Bank of India Repo Rates. However, the OP has never reduced the interest rates in the past when the repo rate was reduced by Reserve Bank of India. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant has filed a recovery suit thereby claiming to reverse the excess entry of Rs.1,66,501/-. This should be essentially a suit for recovery, whereas futilely it has been given shape of consumer complaint. No recovery of any excess amount of complainant is outstanding against the OP in any manner. The case of the complainant is based upon the alleged illegal increase of rate of interest amount with respect to the Housing Loan bearing no.HOU/KAR/1015/248538 and the Non-Housing Loan bearing no.NHL/KAR/0319/669326 as availed by the complainant from the OP and the averments in complaint in regard to illegal increase of rate of interest are completely denied by the OP. It is further pleaded that a bare perusal of the Finance Documents, including but not limited to, accepted sanction letters dated 31.10.2015 (Housing Loan) and 27.03.2019 (Non-Housing Loan), General Terms and Conditions, Most Important Terms and Conditions, Disbursement Request Letters, Statement of Accounts will reveal that EMI amount is mathematically calculated by the OP, as per the prevailing Floating Rate of Interest. As per sanction letter the Housing Loan of the complainant to the tune of Rs.5,04,378/- was sanctioned at a floating rate of interest @ PNBHFR 14.35%-4.60%=9.75% for 164 months as evident from the Accepted sanction letter dated 31.10.2015 and Non-Housing loan dated 27.03.2019 to the tune of Rs.12,13,183/- at a floating rate of interest @ 9.75+0.60=10.35% for 180 months as per accepted sanction letter dated 27.03.2019. The complainant is misleading this Commission by stating that the rate of interest being charged currently by the OP has been arbitrarily increased as it is a floating rate of interest which is dependent on fluctuating PNBHFR. The PNBHFR charged by the OP is contingent upon variety of factors for instance the profile of the Borrower, prevailing market conditions, the internal policy of PNBHFL/OP, category of customer CIBIL Score of the borrower, etc. it varies with time and is not fixed arbitrarily rather mathematically. The complainant accepted the loan facilities under floating rate of interest which keeps on fluctuating depending on PNBHFL, cannot at a belated stage be allowed to shy away from their obligation of abiding by the terms and conditions binding thereto and praying for a fixed EMI by falsely alleging the OP should charge a lower rate of interest from Borrowers. Hence, while applying the loan facility with floating rate of interest, It was well within the knowledge of the complainant that the OP had full right and discretion to change the applicable rate of interest for the said facility. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of sanction letter dated 05.12.2015 Ex.C1, copy of sanction letter dated 10.04.2019 Ex.C2, copy of legal notice dated 19.05.2022 Ex.C3, copy of email communication with OP Ex.C4, copy of email dated 30.05.2022 Ex.C5, copy of repo rates as issued by the Reserve Bank of India Ex.C6, copies of Loans Amortization Schedules Ex.C7 and Ex.C8, copies of loan account as corrected by the complainant Ex.C9 and Ex.C10, copy of variation of interest table as prepared by the complainant Ex.C11, copy of reference rate chart taken from the website of PNB Housing Finance Limited Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on 07.03.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ankur Kaushik, Ex.OP1/A, copy of sanction letter dated 31.10.2015 Ex.OP1, copy of disbursement kit Ex.OP2, copy of supplementary loan agreement Ex.OP3, copy of loan Amortization Schedule Ex.OP4, copy of statement of account dated 18.09.2023 Ex.OP5, copy of sanction letter dated 27.03.2019 Ex.OP6, copy of disbursement kit Ex.OP7, copy of loan Amortization Schedule Ex.OP8, copy of general terms and conditions Ex.OP9 and closed the evidence on 18.09.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has submitted that he availed  two loans from the OP one for Rs.5,04,378/- and second for Rs.12,13,183/- for floating rate of interest. He received an email dated 30.05.2022, vide which the OP increased the rate of interest but OP has never reduced the interest rates in the past when the repo rate was reduced by Reserve Bank of India. He requested the OP several times not to charge the excessive amount and also not to charge excessive rate of interest but OP charged the excess of Rs.1,66,501/-. He requested the OP several times for refund of the said amount but OP did not refund the extra charged amount and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant availed two loans. The complainant accepted the loan facilities under floating rate of interest. No excess amount has been charged from the complainant. The rate of interest has been charged from the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Complainant has challenged the rate of interest charged by OP on the loans availed by him. The first loan was availed by the complainant on 05.12.2015 and second on 10.04.2019.  Complainant alleged that OP has charged the excess interest on the loans and not charged as per the terms and conditions of loan agreements and guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Complainant has already deposited the disputed interest amount. The dispute in the present complaint with regard to rendition of loan accounts from 2015 to 2022 and same is required elaborate evidence and same cannot be decided in summary process under Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence, the best platform to decide the matter in dispute is the Civil Court where elaborate and detailed testimony can be produced by the parties. In this regard, we are placed reliance upon the observations made in case titled as Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007 (4) CPJ Page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble National Commission that complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court. Further, in case titled as M/s The Bills through its Proprietor Versus PNB reported in 1998 (1) CPC page 150, decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh it has been held that complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.

11.          Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down the aforesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the case, the present complaint is not maintainable before the Commission and disposed of accordingly with the liberty to complainant to approach the Court/Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired. In view of the law laid down Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583 the complainant would be at liberty to get the benefit of provisions of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the present complaint before this Commission while computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing such complaint. No order as to cost. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
Dated: 17.05.2024 

  President,       

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                  (Vineet Kaushik)              (Dr. Suman Singh)  

                 Member                             Member