Complaint No: 122 of 2021.

                                                                   Date of Institution: 07.05.2021.

                                                                          Date of order: 08.11.2023.

1.       Pardeep Joshi Son of Sh. Ram Murti,

2.       Urmil Devi @ Urmal Joshi wife of Pardeep Joshi. Pin-143521.

          Both residents of House No. 340/13, New 441, Mohalla Gopal Nagar, Behrampur Road, Near No. 1 Health Club, Gurdaspur, Tehsil        and District Gurdaspur. – 143521.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               .....Complainants.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

                                                                            VERSUS

1.       HDFC Limited, SCO No.25, District Shopping Centre, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, through its Manager, Pin – 143001.

2.       HDFC Limited, Near Shani Mandir, Dalhousie Road, Pathankot, through its Branch Manager.  Pin – 145001.

3.       The MD Headquarter Registered Office Ramon House, H.T. Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020.

                                                                                                                                      ….Opposite parties.

                                                    Complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainants: Sh.B.S.Aujla, Advocate.

               For the Opposite Parties: Ms.Meena Mahajan, Advocate.  

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.

          Pardeep Joshi & Urmil Devi, Complainants (here-in-after referred to as complainants) has filed this complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against HDFC Limited etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that the complainant took house loan of Rs.3,25,000/- from the opposite parties vide A/c No.563672498 which was approved vide letter of two pages dated 16.07.2007. It is further pleaded that an agreement of seven pages mentioning all the terms and conditions regarding rate of interest mode of repayment and also about installments was also executed between the complainant and opposite parties. It is further pleaded that at the time of loan agreement it was fixed that complainants will repay monthly installments of Rs.3925/- which they have to pay in 156 installments. It is further pleaded that rate of interest was fixed for 11% per annum which was based on currently prevailing retail prime lending rate (RPLR). It is further pleaded that above these conditions were mentioned in approval letter dated 16.07.2007. It was also mentioned in said letter that RPLR may vary during its pendency. It is further pleaded that the complainants have paid 157 installments regularly till March 2021 which the opposite parties have collected from the account of complainants in IDBI Bank, Branch Gurdaspur. It is further pleaded that the opposite parties are still alleging that the loan amount of about Rs.1,30,000/- is still outstanding against the complainants to be repaid to the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that as per the calculation of the complainant the opposite parties have received excess amount from the actual amount illegally and dishonestly without any valid calculation as per the prevailing rates of interest time to time as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank during the pendency of loan period. It is further pleaded that the opposite parties have collected one extra installment from the account of complainants whereas they are entitled only for 156 installments. It is further pleaded that the complainants repeatedly visited the office of opposite party at Pathankot for requesting them to give clearance to them and also return excess amount collected by the opposite parties from the account of complainants but the opposite parties are demanding another amount of about Rs.1,30,000/- in 29 installments. It is further pleaded that the complainants have also send a legal notice dated 08.04.2021 to the opposite parties for requesting them to stop collecting installments from the account of complainants and return the excess amount collected by them and also requested to give clearance and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainants for illegal and unnecessarily harassment, but they have given a reply dated 23.04.2021 without mentioning any sufficient reason which is vague. It is further pleaded that the complainants are senior citizens and old age persons and the opposite parties are harassing them by collecting excess amount and by demanding other amount which is illegal and without any right calculation. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainants has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainants has alleged deficiency and negligence in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to stop collecting installments from the account of complainants and to return the excess amount collected by the opposite parties from the account of complainants and also directed to give clearance of loan to the complainants and also pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages, harassment suffered by way of mental tension and agony and Rs.10,000/- litigation expenses to the complainants alongwith interest @ 12% per annum, from the date of filing the complaint, till its realization, in the interest of justice.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Hon'ble Commission as this Hon'ble Commission has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is further pleaded that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground only and the complainants have not approached this Hon'ble Commission with clean hands and has tried to seek relief from this Hon'ble Court by projecting wrong facts. It is further pleaded that complainants have wrongly projected that the loan availed by the complainants was on fixed rate of interest whereas and loan availed by the complainants was under the Adjustable (variable/floating) Rate Home Loan Scheme. It is further pleaded that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground only and if such applications are entertained, it would result in chaos within the banking system and it would result in serious injustice besides anomalous consequences. It is further pleaded that the present complaint involves disputed question of facts and the same cannot be decided in the summary procedure before this Hon'ble Commission, therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground only. It is pleaded that the loan availed by the complainants is of variable rate of interest. It is further pleaded that Rate of Interest is Retail Prime Lending Rate Minus Spread which is given to the borrower. It is further pleaded that ROI increases with increase in RPLR and decreases with decrease in RPLR, the term/tenure of the loan changes (the loans being variable rate loans) in order to keep the EMI’s unchanged with the change in the ongoing/current Rate of Interest. It is further pleaded that any increase or decrease in the rate of interest on account of change in the RPLR would automatically increase or decrease the number of EMI’s. It is further pleaded that Pursuant thereto, the tenure of the loan agreement correspondingly increases or decreases till the time the loans are repaid in full and same principle applies to the said loans as well. It is further pleaded that also as per the clause 2.6(d) of the Loan Agreement, as a result of variation in the Adjustable Interest Rate, the number of EMI’s is liable to vary. It is further pleaded that as the same was already in the knowledge of the complainants as the same was consented and agreed by the complainants at the time of the Home Loan Agreement. Now the complainants can't be allowed to back out from the agreement. It is further pleaded that no excess amount has been received from the complainants rather a sum of Rs.99,070/- is still outstanding as on 31.05.2021. It is further pleaded that the complainants were themselves are at fault by not repaying the complete loan amount and thus committed the breach of trust/loan agreement and therefore the claim of the complainants is completely unjustified.

          On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

4.       Learned counsel for the complainants has tendered into evidence affidavit of Pardeep Joshi, (Complainant No.1) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-23.

5.       Learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Aditya Kochar, (Assistant Manager and Authorized Representative of Housing Development Finance Corp. Ltd., Chandigarh) as Ex.OPW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3.

6.       Rejoinder not filed by the complainants.

7.       Written arguments filed by the complainants but not filed by the opposite parties.

8.       The counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant took house loan of Rs.3,25,000/-. It is further argued that an agreement of seven pages mentioning all the terms and conditions regarding rate of interest mode of repayment and also about installments was also executed between the complainant and opposite parties and at the time of loan agreement it was fixed that complainants will repay monthly installments of Rs.3925/- which they have to pay in 156 installments. It is argued  that rate of interest was fixed for 11% per annum which was based on currently prevailing retail prime lending rate (RPLR) mentioned in approval letter dated 16.07.2007 and it was also mentioned in said letter that RPLR may vary during its pendency. It is argued  that the complainants have paid 157 installments regularly till March 2021 which the opposite parties have collected from the account of complainants in IDBI Bank, Branch Grasper, but the opposite parties are still alleging that the loan amount of  about Rs.1,30,000/- is still outstanding against the complainants to be repaid to the opposite parties. The act of the opposite parties amounts to business mal practice.

9.       The counsel for the opposite parties has argued that as per the clause 2.6(d) of the Loan Agreement Ex C2, as a result of variation in the Adjustable Interest Rate, the number of EMI’s is liable to vary and as the same was already in the knowledge of the complainants as the same was consented and agreed by the complainants at the time of the Home Loan Agreement vide letter Ex C1. Now the complainants can't be allowed to back out from the agreement. It is further argued that no excess amount has been received from the complainants rather a sum of Rs.99,070/- is still outstanding as on 31.05.2021 and the compliant is liable to be dismissed. During the course of arguments the counsel for the opposite party was asked to produce if opposite party ever informed the complianant regarding change of interest and in reply to said quary, manager of opposite party has produced on the record number of massges sent to the complainant from time of time regarding revision.

10.     We have heard the both the counsels for the parties and have gone through the record.

11.     It is admitted fact that complainant took house loan of Rs.3,25,000/- from the opposite parties vide A/c No. 563672498 which was approved vide letter dated 16.07.2007 Ex C1. It is further admitted fact that an agreement of seven pages mentioning all the terms and conditions regarding rate of interest mode of repayment and also about installments was also executed between the complainant and opposite parties copy of which is Ex C2. It is further admitted fact that at the time of execution of the loan agreement, it was fixed that complainants will repay monthly installments of Rs.3925/- i.e 156 installments. It is further admitted fact  that rate of interest was fixed @ 11% per annum which was based on currently prevailing retail prime lending rate (RPLR) and above these conditions were mentioned in approval letter dated 16.07.2007 Ex C1.  It further admitted fact that in said letter it is mentioned that RPLR may vary during its pendency. It is admitted fact that the complainants have paid 157 installments regularly till March 2021 which the opposite parties have collected from the account of complainants in IDBI Bank, Branch Gurdaspur.  The only disputed issue for adjudication is whether the rate of interest is fixed one in view of the agreement of loan or is variable. It is admitted by the complainant that vide approval letter Ex C1 the rate of interest was @ 11 % per annum but perusal of special condition No.7 shows that rate of interest mentioned above is based on the currently prevailing RPLR and same may vary at the time of disbursement of the loan as well as during its pendency in terms of the said loan agreement. Even loan agreement Ex C2 shows that as per the clause 2.6(d) of the Loan Agreement Ex C2, as a result of variation in the Adjustable Interest Rate, the number of EMI’s is liable to vary and both the approval letter and loan agreement are signed by the complainants, meaning there by that both the complainants signed the same after having gone through the same. During the course of arguments manager of opposite party has produced on the record number of messages sent to the complainant from time of time regarding revision but the record shows that complainant never protested the said revision taking place and receipt of massages is also not denied by the complainant, which proves that the contentions of the complainant are only after thought.  More over it is not the case of the complainants that they were compelled to sign on the blank forms or that terms and conditions were not explained to them. As such we do not find any merit in the compliant as such compliant is ordered to be dismissed. 

12.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases.

13.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                                                                               

            (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                                      President.  

Announced:                                                   (B.S.Matharu)

Nov. 08, 2023                                                       Member.

*YP*