deBEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.02 of 2020
New CC No.356 of 2023
(Remanded Back) 11.08.2023
Date of Inst. 31.08.2023
Date of Decision: 07.11.2023
Smt. Balwinder Kaur w/o Norinderjeet Singh R/o Village Bakkarpur, Tehsil Bholath, Distt. Kapurthala now residing at H. No.817 Sardar Atma Singh Urban Estate, Kapurthala Distt. Kapurthala through attorney Norinderjeet Singh R/o Village Bakkarpur, Tehsil Bholath, Distt. Kapurthala now residing at H. No.817 Sardar Atma Singh Urban Estate, Kapurthala Distt. Kapurthala.
..........Complainant
Versus
Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd Unit No.5 Link Road, Model Town Near Guru Amar Dass Chowk Jalandhar 144003 Through its Manager.
….….. Opposite Party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. B. P. Singh, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Akhil Chopra, Adv. Counsel for the OP.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been remanded back by the Hon’ble State Commission, vide order dated 11.08.2023, whereby the order of this Commission dated 12.01.2021 had been set-aside and further, a direction was given to this Commission to decide the complaint afresh, on merits within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties, after hearing them, in accordance with law.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had taken a housing loan against the mortgage of her husband’s plot underneath the residential house now stand constructed over the plot No.817 situated at Sardar Atma Singh Urban Estate, Kapurthala. That the complainant herself is unable to appear on every date of hearing, hence she appointed her husband Norinderjeet Singh as her attorney to file and pursue the case on her behalf, as he is well conversant with the facts of the case, copy of the attorney is attached as Ex.C-1. That initially the complainant had applied the loan for Rs.3,00,000/- for construction of her house which was enhanced to Rs.6,00,000/- which amount was released/disbursed to the complainant in installments. The first installment of Rs.1,00,000/- was disbursed on 08.08.2005, alongwith another installment of Rs.2,96,798/- on the same day i.e. 08.08.2005. Thereafter, a sum of Rs.1,03,202/- was disbursed on 10.09.2005 and the last installment of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid on 08.04.2006. That for the security of the above said loan the complainant has mortgaged the plot bearing No.817 situated at Urban Estate Kapurthala of her husband and in this respect a loan agreement was executed between the parties, wherein it was stipulated that the respondent shall be charged interest @ 7.5% p. a. as mentioned in the agreement dated 29.05.2005 and total installments were fixed 120. Copy of the agreement is attached with the file bearing loan account No.736827, which is Ex.C-2. However the complainant has deposited 160 installments upto 24.01.2019 instead of 120 including the additional amount Rs.25,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- through separate cheques which was duly encashed by the respondent. That the complainant had been regularly paid the installment every month from her husband’s A/C bearing No.1381000068239 maintained with HDFC Bank Ltd B/o Kapurthala without any default as per the loan agreement which included the principal amount and interest. However, the complainant was shocked to receive the certificate of payment of installment on the loan accounts of Balwinder Kaur bearing No.560753990 of said loan when it was found that the rate of interest has been revised unilaterally from October, 2005 to January 2018 on different rates, which are evident from Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-16.
3. That inspite of the agreement rate of interest got changed unilaterally by the respondent, which was increase, which is against the terms and conditions of the agreement of house loan executed between the parties and also against the guidelines issued by the RBI, without the consent of the complainant, the respondent has wrongly changed the rate of interest as mentioned in the above para. On coming to know of the said wrong leaving of the interest by the respondent the complainant has been many times approached the respondent to do the needful but the respondent directed the complainant to deposit lump sum amount Rs.25,000/- and in that even they will decreasing the interest rate which was paid by the complainant through cheque No.380046 drawn with service charges Rs.168/- i.e Rs.25,168/- by the respondent from the account bearing No.65044191614 of Balwinder Kaur from State Bank of Patiala, B/o Mall Road, Kapurthala (Now State Bank of India, B/o Mall Road, Kapurthala) which is Ex.C-17. The complainant also deposited Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque No.380048 drawn with service charges Rs.416/- i.e. Rs.1,00,416/- by the respondent from the account bearing No.65044191614 of Balwinder Kaur from State Bank of Patiala, B/o Mall Road, Kapurthala (Now State Bank of India, B/o Mall Road, Kapurthala) to reduce the principle amount, photostat copy of the bank statement attached herewith which is Ex.C-18, but the respondent failed to do the needful as such, the said loan has not come to an end. Not only this, the complainant has also further deposited four more installments amounting to Rs.6169/- each which are Ex.C15 to Ex.C22. The complainant uptill now i.e. 24.01.2019 had deposited Rs.11,02,983/- with the bank in shape of 160 installments including the interest, detail attached herewith as mentioned below: copy of the statement of the bank regarding the payment of 160 installment is attached which is Ex.C23.
List of deposit amount from 2005 to 24.01.2019 as follow:
1. 2005 to 2006 Rs.30,996 + 5433/-
2. 2006 to 2007 Rs.73,025/- + 536/-
3. 2007 to 2008 Rs.74,028/-
4. 2008 to 2009 Rs.74,028/-
5. 2009 to 2010 Rs.74,028/-
6. 2010 to 2011 Rs.74,028/-
7. 2011 to 2012 Rs.74,028/-
8. 2012 to 2013 Rs.74,028/-
9. 2013 to 2014 Rs.74,028/-
10. 2014 to 2015 Rs.74,028/-
11. 2015 to 2016 Rs.74,028/-
12. 2016 to 2017 Rs.74,028/-
13. 2017 to 31.03.2018 Rs.74,028/-
14. 24.04.2018 Rs.6169/-
15. 24.05.2018 Rs.6169/-
16. 24.06.2018 Rs.6169/-
17. 24.07.2018 Rs.6169/-
18. 24.08.2018 Rs.6169/-
19. 24.09.2018 Rs.6169/-
20. 24.10.2018 Rs.6169/-
21. 24.11.2018 Rs.6169/-
22. 24.12.2018 Rs.6169/-
23. 24.01.2019 Rs.6169/-
Total:- Rs.11,03,567/-
That as per agreement the complainant has repaid the loan amount in 120 installments but the respondent received 160 installments due to the excess rate of interest. The detail of the paid 120 installments has follows:-
5166 x 9 = Rs.46,494/-
6169x111 = Rs.6,84,759/-
Total = Rs.7,31,253/- (which is recoverable amount upto 24.10.2015)
That the respondent received excess money of 40 installments from the complainant upto 24.01.2019 as follows:
6169 x 40 = Rs.2,46,760/-
And additional amount Rs.25,168/- + Rs.1,00,416/- = Rs.3,72,344/-
4. That it is pertinent to mention here that previously a complaint was filed by the complainant in the Court of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala. In that complaint, the complainant inadvertently mentioned address of the respondent as Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. (HDFC Bank Ltd.) branch Kapurthala through its Branch Manager instead of Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd Unit No.5 Link Road, Model Town Near Guru Amar Dass Chowk Jalandhar 144003 and in that complaint an appeal was preferred by the respondent in the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, the appeal of the appellant bank was allowed and order of the District Consumer Forum, Kapurthala was set aside and the complainant was directed to at liberty to avail remedy against the respondent proper parties before the appropriate authority as per law. Hence now this complaint is being filed against the OP in the proper Forum having jurisdiction. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and negligent on the part of the OP due to which the complainant has been suffering a great mental tension and financial loss and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the excess amount Rs.3,72,344/- with interest @ 7.5% from 25.10.2015 till date already received from the complainant in contravention of term of their agreement with the complainant and further directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental torture being suffered by the complainant and litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/- and to return the received excess money with 7.5% interest to the complainant and any other relief which the complainant is found entitled may also be granted in her favour.
5. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable, hence the same deserves to be dismissed and further averred that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the matter, as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and also the complaint is time barred. It is further alleged that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and is concocting the story after the other and is suppressing true and material facts from this Forum, just in order to extract money from the answering OP by putting undue pressure and involving the answering OP in unwarranted litigation, as such, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. It is further alleged that the story set up by the complainant that as to why different rates of interest have been levied by HDFC Limited and the allegation that interest has been wrongly charged is totally misleading and incorrect. Further, the complainant is well educated and had willingly agreed for floating rate of interest and now cannot turn around at this stage to get benefit out of nothing. The answering respondent is charging rate of interest strictly as per the loan agreements executed by the complainant and as per the rules, regulations and guidelines of NHB (National Housing Bank) and the guidelines of RBI regarding rate of interest on Housing Loan does not apply in the present case. It is further alleged that the complainant had been initially granted housing loan @ RPLR (Retail Prime Lending Rate) minus spread of 2.75%, meaning thereby, whatever be the RPLR which would fluctuate in a floating rate of interest, the complainants would be charged 2.75% less than it. Further, there is no obligation on the part of the HDFC Limited to inform the loanees about change in applicable rate of interest and as per the loan agreement, it is obligatory on the part of the loanees to keep them updated as regards changed in applicable rate of interest Nonetheless, it is relevant to mention here that changes in HDFC’s Retail Prime Lending Rate (RPLR) are published in most newspapers and other media channels, and is also displayed/updated on its website being www.hdfc.com. The copy of the print out from website is attached as Ex.OP-1. But otherwise, the complainant was very well intimated regarding the change of interest rates/RPLR through various modes, including SMS at different times. However, the term/tenure of the loan changes in order to keep the EMI’s unchanged with the changed in the ongoing rate of interest. Any increase or decrease in the rate of interest and account of change is RPLR would automatically increase/decrease the number of EMI’s. Persuade there to the tenure of the loan agreement correspondingly increases or decreases till the time the loans are paid in full and the same principle implied to the Home Loans as well. It is further alleged that the OP always adhered to the guidelines issued by NHB. It is normal lending practice followed by the banks and other financial institutions to benchmark their lending rates on the basis of their own Prime Lending Rates, which are revised by respective managements independently and further submitted that the answering OP is complying with all statutory guidelines and instructions issued by the Competent Authorities. It is to clarify here that HDFC Ltd. is not charging interest rates by undertaking and/or adopting discriminatory practice or any arbitrary rationale. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had taken a housing loan against the mortgage of her husband’s plot underneath the residential house now stand constructed over the plot No.817 situated at Sardar Atma Singh Urban Estate, Kapurthala and it is also admitted that loan agreement was executed between the parties and the initial rate of interest was 7.5% p. a. at the time of executing the initial loan agreement, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
6. Rejoinder to the written statement of the OP, filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied those of the written statement.
7. The parties have led evidence in support of their respective versions by way of affidavits and documents.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
9. It is admitted that the complainant had applied for financial assistance/loan for the purchase of plot which was granted and the loan of Rs.3,00,000/- was sanctioned for the purchase of plot and thereafter, the complainant applied for construction loan and the said loan to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- was sanctioned to them and was disbursed. It is not disputed that the property No.817, Urban Estate, Kapurthala was mortgaged with the OP and the loan agreement was executed. The loan agreement has been proved as Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3. The complainant has alleged that as per the agreement, the total installments were fixed 120, but the complainant has deposited 160 installments upto 24.01.2019. The grudge of the complainant is that he has been paying the installments regularly, but the OP has unilaterally revised the rate of interest from 7.5% p.a. to 8.5% p.a. from October 2005 to February 2006, 8%, March 2006 to March 2006 8.50% April 2006 to April 2006, 8.50%, May 2006 to May 2006 8.50%, June 2006 to August 2006, 9.0%, September 2006 to February 2007 9.50%, March 2007 to March 2007, 10.75%, April 2007 to May 2007, 10.75%, June 2007 to February 2008, 11.25%, March 2008 to March 2008, 11.0%, Apr 2008 to August 2008, 11.0%, September 2009, 12.25%, March 2009 to March 2009, 11.75%, 2009, 11.75%, June 2009 to October 2009, 11.0%, 2008 to February April 2009 to May November 2009 to February 2010, 9.25%, March 2010 to March 2010, 9.25%, Apr. 2010 to October 2010, 9.25%, November 2010 to January 2011, 9.75%, Feb. 2011 and March 2011, 10.75%, Apr. 2011 to Apr 2011, 10.75%, May 2011 to July 2011, 11.0%, August 2011 to December 2011, 12.0%, January 2012 and March 2012, 12.0%, Apr. 2012 to December 2012, 12%, January 2013, 12%, Feb 2013 and March 2013 missed, April 2013 to April 2013, 12.0%, May 2013 to October 2013, 11.90%, November 2013 to January 2014, 12.15%, February 2014 12.25%, March 2014 is missed in the statement, E Apr. 2014 to January 2015, 12.25%, February 2015, 12.25%, March 2015 is missed in the statement, April 2015 to June 2015, 10.10%, July 2015 to December 2015, 9.90%, January 2016 to January 2016, 9.65%, Feb. 2016, 9.65%, the month March 2016 is missed in the statement, April 2016 to 2 March 2017, 9.65% and April 2017 to December 2017, 9.50%, January 2018 9.50%. And the complainant has challenged the unilaterally increased in the rate of interest and has alleged that as per agreement, the OP has received excess money of 40 installments from the complainant upto 24.01.2019 whereas the OP has alleged that the complainant has made serious defaults in the payment of the installments. The rate of interest has been charged as per the loan agreement. The complainant himself has agreed and opted for floating rate of interest and they are liable to make the payment of the interest. The rate of interest got changed as per the terms and conditions of the agreements of housing loan. The OP has denied that they have received 160 installments due to excess rate of interest. The OP has alleged that the rate of interest was charged as per the loan agreement as the complainant has agreed for floating rate of interest.
10. The home loan agreement is Ex.C-2. As per Ex.C-2 there is clear cut reference of the facts that the term of repayment is 120 months and the rate of interest is 7.5%. The other documents relied upon by the complainant are the statement of accounts and the letters and interest certificate issued by the OP. The documents relied upon by the complainant have also been relied upon by the OP as these documents are interest certificate and statement of account which are the record of the OP. Though, the OP has alleged that the complainant has agreed for floating interest but in the agreement, it has nowhere been mentioned that there was an agreement between the parties regarding the floating interest on the loan. As per the submission of OP, the rate of interest is to be changed and revised as per the guidelines of the RBI, but at the same time, it is the duty of the OP to inform the consumer/loanee about the increased rate of interest and the revision of installment of the loan with interest. No document has been filed on record by the OP to show that the complainant was ever informed about the changed rate of interest. Though, as per the guidelines of the RBI, the OP has a right to change the interest, but not unilaterally without informing the complainant. The OP has alleged that change in rate of interest is being published in many of the newspaper, but this allegation and this assertion is a vague assertion. The complainant was never informed that the change in the interest is being published in such and such newspapers. No name of newspaper has been mentioned even in written statement nor there is any such document on the record to show that the complainant was duly informed about the publication of rate of interest in the newspaper, so, that the complainant may be aware and conscious for reading the newspaper. Merely saying that the change in the interest is being published in many newspaper and on this ground, it cannot be concluded that the complainant was having the knowledge of change of interest in the loan amount. The law referred by the Learned Counsel for the complainant is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and the same is of Hon'ble National Commission, in FA No.454 of 2021, decided on 23.11.2022, titled as ‘ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Vishnu Bansal’, wherein it has been held that ‘Home loan - Increase in rate of interest and tenure of home loan Complaint filed against Bank - Defence taken by the bank before State Commission was that the interest rate and the number of equated monthly installments were increased only in terms of the provisions of the loan agreement executed between the bank and the complainant - It was further stated that the agreement provided for floating rate of interest and the complainant signed the same after reading. understanding and agreeing to its contents - Complaint was allowed by State Commission - Hence present appeal has been filed by Bank – it was held that though Bank had the power to change the rate of interest charged or change the number of the EMIs, however, the Complainant was never apprised about the fact that the rate of interest had been increased or the number of EMIs has been changed - Bank was duty bound to disclose the aforesaid information to the Complainant in order to provide the complainant the option to either close the account or shift the account - Consequently, the increase or decrease by the in the interest rates by the Bank without taking the consent from the complainant amounts to Unfair Trade Practice - Consequently, Bank is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,62,093/- along with interest @ 6% calculated from the date of institution of the present complaint i.e. 14.02.2019 till 11.05.2021.’
It has been held by the Hon’ble Chandigarh State Commission (UT), in Appeal No.2261 of 2008, decided on 27.05.2009, titled as ‘ICICI Bank Limited and another Vs. Surinder Singh’ that ‘Banking service - Home loan - Increase in rate of interest Bank (OP) charged higher rate of interest from complainant submitting that rate of interest enhanced by Reserve Bank of India Hence it had charged increased rate of interest after giving intimation of the same to the complainant Complaint filed before Dist. Forum allowed - Hence present appeal - As no evidence has been placed on record to either prove any change in the rate of interest or to confirm any intimation of the changed rate of interest having been given to the complainant - Findings of District Forum that the OP Bank was not entitled to charge the enhanced rate of interest from the complainant upheld - Appeal dismissed.’
This is not the case of the OP that the complainant was ever intimated about the change of interest. Though, for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the complainant had agreed in the loan agreement about the revision of the interest, but at what rate, nothing has been mentioned even in the loan agreement.
So, in view of the above referred law and considering the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the law relied upon by the complainant is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed.
11. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OP is directed to refund the excess amount Rs.3,72,344/- with interest @ 7.5% from 25.10.2015 till date already received from the complainant in contravention of term of their agreement with the complainant. Further, OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
07.11.2023 Member President
