ORDER

M. SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER

Challenge in these Revision Petition Nos. 1612 to 1614 of 2016, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), is to the order dated 6.10.2015 in Appeal Nos. 497 to 499 of 2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (for short “the State Commission”).  By the impugned orders, the State Commission dismissed the Appeals preferred by the Appellants/Complainants, on the ground that there was no deficiency of service on behalf of the Bank.

2.     As these Revision Petitions deal with common facts preferred by the same Complainants against the same Bank and they are being disposed of by a common order.

3.     For the sake of convenience, Revision Petition No. 1612 of 2016 is taken as a lead case.

4.     The brief facts as set out in the Complaint are that the Complainants had availed loan facility from the Opposite Party/Bank, through their agent for an amount of ₹14,00,000/-, the first instalment of which was due in November, 2006.  It is averred that at the time of sanctioning of the loan, the fourth Opposite Party working on behalf of first three Opposite Parties took the signatures of the Complainants on blank forms and blank cheques.  It is pleaded that the Complainants have been receiving calls that some amount is due and that they are liable to pay interest at 14.5% p.a.  It is further pleaded that the interest rate at the time of sanctioning of the loan was 11% and that the number of instalments were 180, which was increased to 267 without any prior intimation.  A legal notice was issued on 1.7.2009 requesting for correction of the statement of accounts. It is averred that the Opposite Parties sent musclemen, who threatened the Complainants on various dates from 24.7.2009 to 28.7.2009 to make the payment.  The Complainants stated that the Opposite Parties had unilaterally increased the interest rate from 11% to 14.5% p.a., at a floating rate which is arbitrary.  Hence, the Complaint seeking direction to the Opposite parties to charge interest at 11% p.a. reducing as agreed upon at the time of sanctioning of the loan and to reduce the number of instalments from 267 to 180 and pay compensation of ₹ One Lakh and costs.

5.     The Opposite parties filed their written version denying all the allegations and stated that the interest rate which was being charged was mutually agreed upon by both the parties at 13.2%+0.75% variance i.e. totalling to 14%,  which was duly mentioned in the Agreement executed  between both the parties.  It was denied that the Opposite Parties got blank papers and proforma cheques signed by the Complainants.  It is averred that amount of ₹56,976/- was outstanding which the Complainants had to pay at the time of filing of the Complaint.

6.     The District Forum based on the evidence adduced, dismissed the Complaint observing that from the terms and conditions of the agreement, it was clear that EMIs and the interest rate could be varied by the Bank, from time to time as per their discretion.

7.     Aggrieved by the said Order, the Complainants preferred Appeals before the State Commission which dismissed the Appeals and concurred with the findings of the District Forum.

8.     The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners vehemently argued that the interest rate which was promised was 11%, which was increased to 13.25% plus 0.75% variance, and number of instalments were arbitrarily increased from 180 to 267, which is contrary to the terms of the agreement.

9.     The three Petitioners had availed three credit facilities of ₹7,20,000/-, ₹14,00,000/- and ₹6,90,000/- .  The Petitioners contended that they were forced to issue two cheques of ₹11,40,962/- each, amounting to ₹22,81,924/-.  The statement of accounts filed before us is dated 15.9.2009 and it clearly states that the tenure (in months) is 268 and the Rate Type is floating ‘interest rate’.  Vide order dated 11.8.2016, the Petitioner was permitted to file some additional documents and the counsel had filed the loan agreement, the first page of which reads as
follows:

“ICICI Home Finance

November 26, 2002

Ashok Kumar & Sandeep Kumar,

Ashok Nagar

Panipat, Haryana

Dear Sir/Madam,

Sub for facility application No. 773-5278149

10.   The terms of agreement filed here does not anywhere state that the rate of interest was 11%.  Infact condition 4 stipulates that the ‘borrower would pay interest’ on the facility and all other charges/fees/monies at the rate and on the date specified in the schedule to facilitate the agreement or at such other rate(s) as may be decided by ICICI Bank from time to time at the Bank’s sole discretion.  It is also stated that the rate of interest payable by the borrower shall be subject to changes in the interest rates made by RBI from time to time.  ICICI can give effect to any representation of interest of rate as per RBI Guidelines and Directives. Keeping in view the loan agreement which specifies the interest rate to be ‘floating’ with the sole discretion of the Bank with respect to the variance interest as well as the number of instalments, it is observed that there is no illegality or infirmity in the concurrent finding of both the Fora below.

11.   It is pertinent to note that these Revision Petitions have also  been filed within a delay of 113 days. There are no substantial grounds given in the application seeking condonation of delay.  We rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), in which the Hon’ble Apex Court  held as under:

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”. 

It must be mentioned here that the authority in the case of Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (supra) pertains to the Consumer Protection Act.

12.   Keeping in view the afore-mentioned judgment and the reasons cited in the application, I do not see it a fit case to condone the inordinate delay of 113 days.

13.   There is no error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order and having regard to the concurrent finding of fact by both the Fora below, I do not find it a fit case to exercise our limited revisional jurisdiction as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.  II (2010) CPJ 19 (SC), and hence, these Revision Petitions are dismissed on both delay and merits. No order as to costs.