| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 95 of 25.2.2019 Decided on: 9.1.2023 Jatinder Kaur w/o Labh Singh, resident of House No.330, Village Laut, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - DHFL Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., SCO 94-9-5, New Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala through its Branch Manager.
- DHFL Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. Divisional Office: SCO 811-812, Sector 22,Chandigarh, through its Authorized Representative.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act QUORUM Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, President Sh.G.S.Nagi,Member ARGUED BY Sh.S.S.Nahar, counsel for complainant. Opposite parties ex-parte. ORDER S.K.AGGARWAL,PRESIDENT - The instant complaint is filed by Smt.Jatinder Kaur w/o Sh.Labh Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against DHFL Housing Finance (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
- It is averred that the complainant applied for a construction loan of Rs.7,42,611/- with the OPs vide loan application No.00642087 (Loan account No.05400000973), which was sanctioned by OP No.1 and disbursed an amount of Rs.7,42,611/- on 13.7.2010 to be repayable within 9 years @ 8.75% in 108 EMIs . It is further averred that first two years EMI of Rs.16,655/- per month was to be paid and afterwards for remaining period of 3-9 years the
EMI of Rs.7174/-was to be paid. It is further averred that the complainant paid the installments regularly from November 2010 till February 2019 - It is further averred that in the month of February,2019 when the complainant went to OP No.1 with the intention to pay the remaining amount of 8 installment in lump sum , the OPs refused to accept the amount and to settle the account. Then the complainant obtained statement of his loan account and came to know that the OPs have wrongly calculated the installments till September 2021 and were now reflecting 131 installments in the account of complainant instead of 108 installments as were fixed at the time of disbursement of loan. The complainant requested OPs to receive remaining 8 installments and to return his original blank signed documents & cheques as well as his pledged sale deed but the OPs refused to do so. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Consequently, prayer has thus been made for the acceptance of the complaint.
- Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel who filed the written statement and also closed the evidence. Thereafter vide order dated 21.1.2021 OPs were proceeded against exparte.
- In the written statement, the OPs took various preliminary objections. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant availed the loan of Rs.7,42,611/- from the OPs at variable rate of interest as mentioned in Offer – cum - Acceptance letter. It is alleged that at the time of sanctioning/disbursement of loan, the rate of interest was 8.75% and the tenure was 108 months with a clause of variable rate of interest being applicable to the loan. It is further alleged that as per the variable rate of interest in the agreement duly signed by the complainant when there is increase/decrease in rate of interest, EMI amount is not increased / decreased and only tenure is increased or decreased. That is why in the present case, loan tenure has increased from 108 EMIs to 131 EMIs. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In support of his case, complainant furnished her affidavit, Ex.CA copy of letter of offer cum acceptance, Ex.C1, copy of account statement, Ex.C2 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Jeewan Garg, Regional Manager of the OPs alongwith documents, Ex. OP1 copy of power of attorney, Ex.OP2 copy of offer cum acceptance letter, Ex.OP3 copy of repayment schedule and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also heard the ld. counsel for the complainant.
- The Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued the case on the basis of contentions made in the complaint and the evidence adduced on record.
- Admittedly, complainant had taken a loan of Rs.7,42,611/- vide, Ex.C1 from the OPs to be repayable in 108 EMIs amounting to Rs.16,655/-each for the first two years and Rs.7174/- for the remaining period of 3-9 years. The loan was disbursed at a variable rate of interest 8.75% per annum. The complainant has averred that EMIs were paid regularly till the time he approached for the closer of the loan account in the month of February, 2019 when only 8 installments were pending and 100 installments were already paid. The complainant has further averred that the installments were increased from 108 to 131.The OPs in their written statement have stated that the loan was issued with the variable rate of interest and since there was a rise in the rate of interest, as such the number of EMIs were increased from 108 to 131 without changing the amount of the EMIs, keeping in mind the convenience of the consumer.
- Counsel for the complainant has argued that the EMIs cannot be increased at the will of the OPs and proper intimation has to be given to the complainant/consumer every time if, there is increase/decrease in the rate of interest. Ld. counsel for the complainant has relied upon the judgment dated 27.8.2019 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled as ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Karam Chand & Anr., wherein it has been held that , “In case there was change in the floating rate of interest on loans then the above said formula was to be adopted, while fixing the rate of interest and taking the consent of the concerned borrower whether he wants to continue the loan with the enhanced rate of interest or he could adopt for other option i.e. closing of the account or shifting of the account, therefore, information/consent of the borrower is the predominant clause while changing the floating rate of interest”. Ld.counsel for the complainant has also relied upon the judgment dated 11.5.2021 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission in the case titled as Vishnu Bansal Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd., wherein it has been held that, “Even if the Opposite party has been given the right to change the rate of interest charged on the loan, it does not automatically confer a power upon the opposite party to increase or decrease the rate of interest without apprising the borrower/complainant about the change in interest charged or the number of EMIs. In simple terms, an opportunity must be afforded to the borrower before changing the floating rate of interest”.
- As far as the present complaint is concerned, there is no denial of the fact that the loan was sanctioned at variable rate of interest of 8.75% per annum to be repaid in 109 EMIs. However, the OPs have not brought anything on record indicating that the complainant was apprised about increase/decrease in rate of interest at any time during the tenure of the loan period. As such we are of the opinion that increase in the rate of interest without any intimation to the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Consequently, we partly allow the complaint with a direction to the OPs to accept the balance EMIs (out of/outstanding from 108 EMIs) from the complainant and close the loan account accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
- The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work, Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
-
-
G.S.Nagi S.K.AGGARWAL Member President | |
