Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President 

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, she is the housewife and owner of Flat No.402, ‘D’Wing, 4^th Floor, Kohinoor Apartment, Dadar (West), Mumbai.  In the month of April-2009, she approached the O.P.no.1 for home loan against the mortgage of above flat.  The O.P.No.1 vide letter dated 30^th May, 2009 sanctioned loan amount of Rs.57,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 14.50% per annum.  The complainant was punctual in repayment of loan installments and repaid amount of Rs.20,27,270/- till 20^th August, 2011. However, she decided to foreclose the Home Loan A/c No.NHMUM00000792468. She has repaid the amount of Rs.56,68,989.24/- outstanding on loan account by cheque dated 16^th August, 2011 drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai.  The O.P.No.1 vide letter dated 10^th September, 2011 informed the complainant that home loan account is clear and no due is outstanding and requested to collect the original documents. 

2)                The complainant received the loan account statement. On going through it, it was seen that the O.P.No.1 has levied foreclosure penalty of Rs.1,21,158.45/- on 20^th August, 2011 and also levied termination amount of Rs.40,420.79/- on 24^th August, 2011. The O.P.No.1 charged interest at the rate of 16.50% per annum instead of 14.5% per annum.  The complainant wrote letter dated 8^th October, 2011 to the O.P.No.1 and requested to refund the amount.  However, it was not replied.  Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint to direct the opponents to refund the amount of Rs.1,61,579/- with interest at the rate  of 18% per annum.  She has also claimed excess interest of Rs.57,000/-. She has claimed cost of Rs.15,000/- and compensation of Rs.15,000/-. 

3)                The opponents filed their written statement.  It is submitted that the complaint is not maintainable against the O.P.No.2 as she is not the service provider.   The rule for non levy of foreclosure charges was brought into effect from 19^th October, 2011 vide Circular No.NHB(ND)/DRS/Pol-No.43/2011-12 i.e. much after the complainant’s account was foreclosed. The amounts are levied as per rules therefore the opponents are not liable to refund it.  The complaint is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed with cost.

4)                After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration

 POINTS

REASONS

5) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- There is no dispute that the complainant availed loan facility and the entire outstanding loan amount was repaid.  The complainant has produced letter dated 10^th September, 2011 issued by the O.P.No.1 informing that loan account is clear and the complainant was requested to collect the property documents.  As per this letter, in September-2011, no loan amount was outstanding.  The complainant is claiming refund of foreclosure charges on the basis of the Circular dated 19^th October, 2011. Loan account was already closed when this circular came into force. Therefore, this circular is not applicable to the loan accounts which were already closed hence the complainant is not entitled to take benefit of this circular.  Even if, it is presumed that this circular is applicable to the loan accounts which were already closed still it is applicable to those borrowers who have repaid the loan amount out of their own sources.  The opponents have produced copy of one letter dated 11^th October, 2011 issued by IIFL informing the opponent that the complainant has availed balance transfer loan facility from India Infoline Investment Services Limited on the Flat No.402 i.e. the same flat mortgaged with the opponents for loan facility.  It shows that loan amount was not repaid from the own sources of the complainant as per circular dated 19^th October, 2011. The loan amount was repaid by borrowing the amount from IIFL therefore the complainant is not entitled for the benefit of the circular dated 19^th October, 2011. 

6)                According to the complainant, the agreed rate of interest was 14.50% per annum but the interest is charged at the rate of 16.50% per annum.  Admittedly, it was floating rate of interest therefore the bank is entitled to charge interest prevailing at the relevant time.  At the time of sanction of loan amount it was 14.50% per annum. The complainant has not produced any evidence on record to show the prevailing rate of interest during the loan period. The complainant has produced statement of accounts issued by the opponents and submitted that interest is wrongly charged at the rate of 16.50% per annum.  The statement shows that the current prevailing rate of interest was 16.50% per annum on 3^rd October, 2011 therefore the interest was charged at floating rate.  The complainant agreed for floating rate of interest therefore she is liable to pay interest at the prevailing rate i.e. 16.50% per annum.

7)                Thus, there is no substance in the complaint and deserves to be dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order. 

ORDER

1. Complaint stands dismissed.
2. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3. Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 25^th July, 2014