FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

Smt. SAHANA AHMED BASU, MEMBER.

The case of the complainants  in short  is that the complainants obtained a floating home loan for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from Ops on 19.12.2002 and tenure of said loan was 204 months at the rate of 10.75% interest payable in terms of EMI i.e. Rs. 1037/-. The aforesaid account were being maintained properly without any disturbance and the payment of installments were regularly being made by the complainant towards the repayment of the loan amount in form of EMI .In the year of 2016 , the complainant decided to pay the balance loan amount to the OPs and then they came to know from the bank statement of the said loan that the balance loan amount was Rs,84,760/- an accordingly number of EMI has been extended .The OPs handed over a bank statement  of the said loan account on 09.06.2004 where the balance loan amount was shown Rs.32,643/- in the repayment schedule of the said loan account . The abovementioned matter was informed to OP through a letter issued by the complainant informed on 02.03.2016 which was not replied by the OP  . Therefore the complainant  wrote several  letters addressing the OP on 20.04.2016 and 20.01.2017 requesting them to clarify the points raised by the complainant and furnish the basis of the calculation. But the OPs failed to explain the issues raised by the complainant . In view above circumstances the complainants personally met with the officials of the OPs regarding the rate of interest charged to the home loan account wherein they were promised that the rate of interest would be reduced , but that did not happen . according to complainants this action on the part of the OPs is glaring example of unfair trade practice . For this reason complainants have no other option to seek relief/reliefs before this Ld. Commission.

O.Ps. contested the case by filing written version assailing the maintainability of  the case. O.P. Denying all allegations against them OP states that the case of the complainant is vexatious , speculative , harassing , malafide and misconceived and barred by principles of waiver estoppel and acquiescence and is also barred by limitation and is also bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties . The Ops stated that the complainants Nos 1&2 jointly took a home loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the OPs and jointly executed a Home Loan Agreement for obtaining the said loan. The terms and conditions of said Home loan are incorporated in the said Home Loan Agreement and the complainant admitted the same .On the date of sanction ,i.e. 19.12.2002 , Prime Lending Rate was 10.75% and the number of EMIs payable was 204 .The complainants had opted for Floating Rate of Interest /Adjustable Interest Rate and not Fixed rate of Interest . Complainants areliable to pay Adjustable Interest Rate which means ICICI Bank Floating Reference Rate and Floating Reference Rate of Bank can be increased or decreased  by the bank time to time , so the bank can charge interest at a higher rate than 10.75% or at a lesser rate than 10.75% . Due to changes in PLR , the interest increased and as well as decreased from time to time and the complainants paid EMI at the valid rate charged by ICICI Bank since the year 2003 and have been paying interest as per varied rate without any dispute . After 09.06.2004 there was variation in the rate of interest av\]nd accordingly due to such increase and/or decrease in the interest rate the EMI amount also varied and hence the statement issued by the Bank in the year 2004 cannot be compared / tallied with the statement for the year 2016. The sum of Rs.84,460/- was the amount outstanding in the year 2016 and the EMI tenure was rightly extended by the Bank . The consent of the borrower is not required for the variation/change in the rate of interest and the tenure of repayment as wrongly alleged by the Complainants .In the Home Loan Agreement it is stipulated that the due to variation in the Adjustable Interest rate , the number of EMI is liable to vary and no intimation shall be given by OPs as to further or other  or reduced number of EMIs requiredto be paid by the borrower upon such change in the Adjustable Interest Rate .

We have travelled over the complaint petition as well as the documents filed by the complainants in support of their contention together with the written version along with annexures submitted by the O.Ps in their support.

The admitted fact is that the complainants obtained a home loan from the OPs at Adjustable Interest Rate and the number of EMI was 204 . Fact also remains that since inception of loan on 09.12.2002 the complainants have been paying interest without any dispute . The dispute arose when in the year of 2016decided to pay the balance loan To the Ops and then came to know that the balance loan amount was Rs.84,760/- and accordingly number of EMIs also increased from 204 to 329 . Whereas in  the bank statement of the OPs  on 09.06.2004 the balance loan amount was 32,643/- . But no document of that statement is found .Photocopies of the Repayment schedule furnished by the complainant are shown that in one copy without any date of issue the due opening principal is Rs.33392/- on 07.03.2016 (instalment No. 153)  and in another Repayment Schedule issued on 29.01.2016 by the OP due opening principal is 84,766/- on 07.03.2016 (instalment No. 153) . Other photocopy of Repayment Schedule  issued on 17.04.2017 furnished by complainant is showing the same . Ld.Advocate for the OP argued that the complainant deliberately suppressed the fact that though the amount of each EMI to be paid was Rs.1037/- , but the amount of each EMI  paidwas Rs.1006/- , which is lesser than Rs.1037/-. Photocopy of the Loan Transaction Details from 19.12.2002 to 21.02.2019 goes to show from 07.07.2003 to 07.07.2006 an amount of Rs. 1006/- has been paid as EMI in every month .Therefore the submission of the Ld.Advocate for the OPs is found true to fact .It is also submitted by the OPs that from07.08.2006  due to change in FRR rate the amount of EMI was Rs.1036/-  and admittedly the complainants duly paid the same EMI amount . Thereafter the EMI amount varied at different phases of repaymentand the complainants paid the revised amount without disputing the same up to the year 2016.On Perusal of the photocopy of the transaction details it is observed that there was fluctuation of amount of EMIs .

The complainant submitted that the complainant raised objection via letter dated 20.01.2017 to the ops regarding increase of interest rate and tenure of payment EMI as at the time of sanction the rate of interest was 10.75% which was increased to 16.60% and tenure increased from 204 months to 329 months  and EMI also increased from RS.1006/- to Rs.1287/- . In this regard Ld. Advocate for the OPargued that the consent of the borrower is not required for variation/change in the rate of interest and the tenure of repayment as wrongly alleged by the complainants has placed reliance on judgement of Hon’ble NCDRC in RP/2641/2013 , ICICI BANK VS GANGA SINGH SEKHAWAT in which an observation of Hon’ble Apex Court in MANU/SC/1193/2002 : VII(2002) SLT 407 : AIR 2003 SC 2122 , Syndicate Bank Vs. R.Veeranna&Ors is mentioned:

“TheHigh Court while holding that the party is bound to pay the interest at the agreed rate took the view that the Bank could not automatically charge the increased rate of interest merely on the basis of rise of interest on account of RBI circulars . it is not a case of automatically charging the increased rate of interest ; charge of higher rate is based on agreement between the parties . the high Court was clearly in error that the principles of natural justice were violated on the ground that the defendants were not put on notice before enhancing the rate of interest when the parties are bound by the terms of the contract .”

Ld. Advocate for OPs further submitted that the said Home Loan at the request of the complainants was sanctioned at Adjustable Interest Rate  and not at Fixed Rate of Interest . The complainants are liable to pay Adjustable Interest Rate which means ICICI Bank Floating Reference Rate . The floating Interest Rate is not a fixed Rate and can be changed (increase or decrease) by the bank from time to time .Moreover , via letter dated 25.08.2016 the OP gave the details  of changes in PLR since inception of the loan account . the said letter is annexed by the OP as Annexure ‘B’ with the WV of the OP .  The submission of the OP is due to changes in PLR , the interest increased  and as well as decreased from time to time and the complainant EMI at the valid rate charged by ICICI Bank since the year 2003 . It is also submitted by the OP in the said Home Loan Agreement it is stipulated  that due to variation in the Adjustable Interest  Rate , the number of EMI is liable to vary and no intimation shall be given by OPs as to further or other or reduced number of EMIs required to be paid by the borrower upon such change in Adjustable InterestRate. Ld. Advocate for the OP sighted the case of ICICI BankLtd Vs Maharaja Krishan Datta and Ors the Hon’ble Supreme CourtObserved following the submission of Senior Consel Mr. P Chidambaram  appearing on behalf the appellant bank that  a housing loan advanced either on a fixed rate  of interest or on a floating rate of interest . In case of floating case , the interest is not fixed  and varies from time to time with the changes in the economic environment and resultant in the borrowing cost of the Bank . For calculating such rates of interest , a bench mark rate is adopted  , which in the present case is the Floating Reference Rate (FRR) . The interest payable by the borrower is determined by adding or subtracting the margin percentage from such a bench mark rate as agreed between the parties .Therefore , if the interest is reduced then the customer would be benefited  and in case, it went up , then the customer has to pay more .

OPs further submitted the complainants intentionally suppressed that prior to filing of this complaint, they have filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman Kolkata being complain No. 201617003000479 . After receiving the notice from the banking Ombudsman, the Ops have submitted their version stating the terms of loan agreement on 30.08.2016 and on 25.08.2016 they have also replied the letter of complainant written on 21.07.2016 to them . Photocopies of those letters are annexed with the WV.

In view of the above context, we find that the complainant kept mum about all these factual positions in their petition of complaint and that too the complainant failed to establish their case by furnishing any cogent evidence.

In view of the above discussion , we may refer  to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 2508 in Bharathi Knitting Company VS World Wide Express Ltd. Case wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed :

“It was stated that aperson who signed  a document containing contract and terms is normally bound by them even though he has not read them , and even though he is ignorant of their precise legal effect .” It has been further observed therein by the Hon’ble Apex Court that :

“when there is a specific term in the contract , the parties are bound by the terms in the contract .”

Thus, we are of the opinion, that no deficiency of service and any unfair trade practice are found on the part of the OPs.

As such, the case fails on merit.

Hence

ORDERED

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs. However, there will be no order as to costs.