Petitioner had raised a personal loan of Rs.1 Lac from the respondent which was to be repaid with interest @ 12.8% in 36 installments. Petitioner filed the complaint alleging that the respondent was charging interest @ 22.6%. District Forum allowed the complaint, aggrieved against which the respondent filed the appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission by the impugned order has reversed the order passed by the District Forum by observing thus: -2- “Coming to the main appeal, it may be stated here, that, we are of the considered opinion, that the same is liable to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. There is, no dispute, between the parties, that a personal loan of Rs.1 lac, was obtained by complainant/respondent. There is hardly any dispute, between the parties, that an agreement of loan Annexure C-1 was executed, between the parties, on 27.08.2007. This document was duly signed by Bhupinder Kaur, complainant/respondent. Alongwith this document, there is a schedule of payment plan of the loan amount. As per this plan, the loan was to be repaid in 36 equal monthly installments. Annexure C-2, the schedule of payment plan, also shows that the loan was to be repaid in 36 equal monthly installments @ Rs.3850/- per month with interest @12.87% p.a. (flat rate). C-4 and C-4/A, have been placed, on record, by the complainant, but these unauthenticated documents do not relate to the present case, as they do not carry the name of the respondent/complainant, as a loanee, nor bear her loan account. In the instant case, the appellant is Citi Financial, whereas C-4 and C-4/A are the documents relating to ICICI Home Finance loan against property. It was a case of simple mathematical calculations. The District Forum, relying upon the documents C-4 and C-4A, as also on C-8, unrelated to the present case, wrongly came to the conclusion, that the respondent/complainant charged interest at a higher rate. As per the schedule of payment plan, C-2, relating to the account of the respondent/complainant, the last installment of loan was to be paid in September, 2010. The amount, which was to be repaid, by the respondent/complainant, as per the payment schedule referred to above, came to be Rs.1,38,600/-, against the amount of loan of Rs.1 lac. The respondent/complainant only made payment of Rs.1,27,050/, in 33 monthly installments, which fact is -3- evident from OP/1. Thereafter, she stopped making payment of the remaining installments. A sum of Rs.12,032.86 paisa, was still due, against the respondent/complainant, to the appellant, at the relevant time. It is not known, as to how, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that interest at an excess rate was charged and that the complainant had repaid the amount, in excess.. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. The State Commission has recorded its findings based on evidence. We have gone through the documents and find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the State Commission. Dismissed. |
