(Passed this on 28th September, 2017)
Shri. S.P. Muley, President –
1. This is a complaint against the Opposite Party No.1, ICICI, Home Finance, and O.P.2, Arcil Arms regarding demand of excess loan amount and applying high rate of interest.
2. As per the complaint, the O.P. 1 is a finance giving company and O.P.2 is also a registered company, appointed by the O.P.1 for recovery of loan. On 18/1/2003 the complainant had taken housing loan of Rs. 1,30,000/- from the O.P.1. It was to be repaid in 240 monthly installments of Rs. 1277/-. Accordingly he has paid installments upto 7/5/2006, and thereafter due to illness of his mother he could not pay further installments for some period. But even thereafter also he tried to pay installment till 2009. Till 2009 he has paid Rs. 90,660/- to O.P.1. Thereafter the O.P.1 transferred loan recovery case to the O.P.2. The O.P.2 has also received Rs. 48,000/- from him towards installments from 22/4/2009 to 31/8/2011. But then, the O.P.2 in order to close the account by recovering balance amount in lump sum, demanded Rs. 1,36,594/-. This is alleged to be unfair trade practise. The O.P.2 has levied interest @ 13.75% without giving intimation to or obtaining consent from him. Hence such interest rate is not admitted to him. Hence it is prayed to declare that demand of excess amount of Rs. 1,36,594/- by leving interest @13.75% is illegal and by accepting proper amount in lump sum from him his loan account be closed. Besides, he has claimed compensation and cost.
3. O.P.1 filed reply and opposed the complaint on the ground that the complaint is bad for non joinder of party. It is stated the complainant and his wife had jointly applied for loan of Rs. 1,30,000/-. Accordingly loan agreement was executed by the O.P.1 with the complainant and his wife. The loan was accepted by him on floating rate of interest. Hence it is denied, interest was charged at higher rate without his consent or intimation. They agreed to repay the loan in 321 equated monthly installments subject to change in floating rate of interest. They also agreed to pay penal charges for any default. The complainant remained in arrears. It is denied they had informed aboubt their inability to pay installments. On 31/12/2007 the O.P.1 entered into an agreement with O.P.2, which purchased the portfolio of the outstanding loans from O.P.1. The outstanding loan of the complainant was sold and assigned to the O.P.2 and since then relationship of him with O.P.1 extinguished. The complainant was then bound to pay installments to O.P.2 and they were paying to O.P.2 as per record. Thus denying unfair trade practise or deficiency in service, it is submitted to dismiss the complaint.
4. O.P.2 in reply stated it is not a loan recovery company of O.P.1. It is denied the complainant has paid installments till 7/5/2006. Reason for not paying further installments is also denied as false. It is also denied rate of interest was levied at higher rate without his consent or intimation. The loan was disbursed on certain terms and conditions which are within his knowledge. The O.P.2 has initiated proceeding under SARFESI Act in February 2010 against the complainant. When he received notice of the proceeding, his brother gave one application to it that the complainant was ready to pay installments regularly and so no action be taken against him. But even then he failed to repay loan and become defaulter of Rs. 1,72,968/-. It is thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. Heard Ld counsels for the complainant and O.P.1. None appeared for the O.P.2. Perused documents. Our findings with reasons are as under.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
6. We have perused account statement of loan a/c filed by the complainant. It reveals, besides him, his wife is also a co-applicant. The loan was given in joint names of the complainant and his wife. But he has not joined his wife as co- complainant. Secondly, it also reveals, rate of interest was floating and it was 13.75% with PLR 15.75%. This document cannot be disputed since it is filed by the complainant. It shows he was well aware of rate of interest which was agreed to be floating. The complainant has not disclosed what was the rate of interest agreed between them. As held in Anil Gupta v/s ICICI Bank II (2017) CPJ 97 (NC) when loan agreement specifies interest rate to be floating, interest rate could be varied by the bank, from time to time as per its discretion and as per RBI guidelines.
7. The complainant has not filed rejoinder to the replies of the OPs. Therefore there is no denial to any of the averments in the reply.
8. It is not in dispute that the portfolio of loan accounts was subsequently assigned to the O.P.2 by O.P.1 by agreement dated 31/12/2007. Since then the O.P.2 stepped into the shoes of O.P.1 in respect of loan account of the complainant, who has also admited this fact. Therefore since then the O.P.1 has no concern with the loan account. O.P.1 is not a necessary party.
9. The complainant has admitted he could not pay installments due to some reasons. But as per his loan a/c he has paid Rs. 90,660/- to O.P.1. He is in arrears and this fact is not disputed by him also. The dispute is only as to rate of interest, which is found to be groundless and unjustified. Hence we find no merits in the complaint. Hence it is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
- The complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.
- Copy of the judgment and order be supplied to both the parties, free of cost.
