Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.09.2009 passed in consumer complaint no.511/2005, Mr.Anilkumar Lallubhai Desai V/s.Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Additional Mumbai Suburban District (‘Forum below’ in short). Consumer complaint stood dismissed. Feeling aggrieved thereby original Complainant has preferred this appeal.
Undisputed facts are that the Appellant/original Complainant had taken housing loan from the Respondent/original Opposite Party - Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondent’). Housing loan was sanctioned by letter dated 23rd February, 1991. Respondent called upon the Appellant to pay tax on interest @ 2% on interest per annum as per the provisions of Interest Tax Act 1974 and demand was made of `2,349/-. According to Appellant, Respondent had no authority to collect interest tax. Further, it is alleged that rescheduling of the rate of interest is not done, to which answer from the Respondent is that unless formalities as requisite and as applicable to the said loan were completed, there arise no question to reschedule of the rate of the interest which amounts to alter or change the contractual terms of loan. Forum below considering all these aspects raised following questions and answered the same in negative:
Sr.No. | Reasoning | Findings |
1 | Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party? | No |
2 | Whether the Complainant is entitled to seek the facility of reduced rate of interest of 10.25% p.a. on the outstanding principal sum from 01.06.2002 as claimed? | No |
3 | Whether the Complainant is entitled to claim of reimbursement expenses of `57,346/- with the interest as claimed? | No |
4 | What order? | As per final order. |
Forum below ultimately dismissed the complaint.
Heard Mr.Wavikar, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant.
In the instant case reimbursement of tax has nothing to do with hiring of service. This is a statutory obligation which is to be discharged accordingly. Further grievance of the Appellant is that Respondent was not authorized to deduct tax. On that count, certainly such grievance has nothing to do with the hiring of service and as such, it is not a consumer dispute. As far as reduction of rate of interest and rescheduling of terms of contract is concerned, it is at a proposal stage only and yet to be accepted by the Respondent and, therefore, no deficiency in service for breach of contractual terms could be alleged.
For the reasons stated above, we find no reason to take different view than what has been taken by the Forum below and thus, finding the appeal devoid of any substance, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal stands dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
