BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.2 of 2020
Date of Instt. 03.01.2020
Date of Decision: 12.01.2021
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
Kuljit Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged 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.
2. 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.C-15 to Ex.C-22. 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/-
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective evidence alongwith documents.
7. We have heard the argument from learned counsel for both the parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
8. In this case, for the security of the loan, the complainant has mortgaged the plot bearing No.817 situated at Urban Estate Kapurthala of her husband and as such, loan agreement was executed between the parties and dispute arises when the rate of interest has been revised unilaterally from 7.5 % p.a. to 8.5% p.a., by the OP, which was increased, which is against the terms and conditions of the agreement and the same is without the consent of the complainant. The OP has wrongly changed the rate of interest and as such, the complainant filed the present complaint.
9. After considering the facts of the complaint, one thing is clear that previously a complaint was filed by the complainant in the Court of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Kapurthala and the same is allowed and after that the OP filed an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Kapurthala and the same was allowed and order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Kapurthala is set-aside. So, one thing is clear that the complainant already availed one remedy from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Kapurthala, copy of the judgment is Ex.C-24, which is partly accepted. As per law if any person/complainant already availed remedy from any authority, then secondly he is not entitled for the same, so the present complaint is not maintainable.
10. Matter not stopped here, admittedly 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 and this fact is mentioned in Para No.4 of the complaint. So, from this point one thing is clear that the territorial jurisdiction is Kapurthala not Jalandhar and therefore the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable being territorial jurisdiction. So, from all angles the complaint of the complainant fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
12th Day of January 2021
(Kuljit Singh)
President
(Jyotsna)
Member
