Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/6/2021

M/s Baldev Krishan Memorial Charitable Society (Retd.) - Complainant(s)

Versus

India Bulls Commercial Credit Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Kuthiala Adv.

30 Sep 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/6/2021
Date  of  Institution	:	10/02/2021
Date   of   Decision	:	30/09/2022

 

 

 

 

 

M/s Baldev Krishan Memorial Charitable Society [Regd.] at House No. 278, Phase-VI, Mohali (Punjab) through its Authorized Signatory Anoop Garg son of Late Sh.Baldev Krishan.

…. Complainant

 

Vs.

 

 

1.     India Bulls Commercial Credit Limited, having its Branch Office at SCO 347-348, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Manager/Branch Head.

 

2.     India Bulls Commercial Credit Limited, at India Bulls Finance Centre, 4^th Floor, Tower-I, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 4000132, through its Manager/ Managing Director.

…… Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI   PRESIDENT

PADMA PANDEY                             MEMBER

                RAJESH K. ARYA                           MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Vikas Kuthiala, Advocate for the Complainant.
		Sh. Shubham Goyal, Advocate Proxy for Ms. Niharika Goel, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

 

 

                In brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, the Complainant obtained Home Loan of Rs.2 crores from the Opposite Parties, to be paid in 180 monthly instalments (15 years) of Rs.2,29,593/- at floating rate of interest of 11%, with 1^st date of EMI as 05.11.2016. The Complainant regularly paid the instalments and there was no default in paying the instalments of the said home loan. It has been averred that the Complainant availed the benefit of Moratorium in the re-payment of the intallments from March 2020 to August 2020 as announced by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India and the Reserve Bank of India on account of the nationwide lockdown ordered due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the various instructions as issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India from time to time. Subsequently, the Opposite Parties issued a fresh repayment schedule increasing/restructured the instalment from 180 (15 years) to 500 (42 years) and imposing heavy interest @ 15.65% from 11% and other charges illegally unilaterally and without any written request of the Complainant vide its letter dated 31.8.2020 (Annexure C-5).  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has preferred the instant Consumer Complaint.

 

2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. 

 

3.         Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 filed their joint reply, inter alia, admitting the factual matrix of the case. It has been pleaded that the Complainant agreed to avail of the loan in question at an adjustable interest rate. The change of the rate of interest and the tenure of re-payment are not only as per the agreements between the parties but also in compliance with the RBI circulars and guidelines. It has been asserted that the Complainant was first intimated regarding the change in the rate of interest in April 2018. However, the Complainant chose not to challenge the same and made the payments of EMI in accordance with the same. The Complainant therefore cannot claim to be aggrieved by the change in the rate of interest and change in the tenure of repayment. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

 

5.         We have heard the Learned Counsel  for the Parties and gone through the record of the case, including the written arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides.

 

6.         After scanning of record, including written arguments, our findings are as under:-

 

7.         The main grouse of the Complainant is that the Opposite Parties have arbitrarily increased the number of instalments of re-payment of the loan from 180 [which was originally scheduled] to 500 [pursuant to increase in the floating rate of interest from 11% to 15.65%] without informing the Complainant about the increase in the floating rate of interest. Per contra, the Opposite Parties have maintained that the change of the rate of interest and the tenure of repayment are not only as per the agreement between the parties, but also in compliance with the RBI circulars and guidelines.

 

8.         Per pleadings of the parties, this Commission finds that the contention of the Complainant is not tenable due to the reasons hereinafter appearing.

 

9.         The Complainant agreed to avail of a loan facility and the nature of the loan is that of home loan for a sum of Rs.2 crores which was to be re-paid @ Rs.2,29,593/- initially for a term of 180 months at floating rate of interest of 11%.  The Complainant had duly accepted the loan sanction letter and appended signatures on letter dated 29.09.2016 in acceptance of the terms and conditions mentioned in the said loan sanction letter. It was clearly mentioned in the loan sanction letter that the rate of interest shall be 11.00% to be begin with, but the same is Adjustable Interest Rate (AIR); the terms being “LFRR (LAP Floating Reference Rate, notified time to time) -7.75% Margin Current LFRR: 18.75”, which means that the said rate of interest is not a static one, but will keep on changing as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. This signifies that the amount to be paid back by the Complainant will increase or decrease according to the interest rate applicable from time to time. As such, it is manifest that the Complainant now cannot claim to be aggrieved by the change in the rate of interest and the change in the tenure of repayment.

 

10.         The record shows, there has been an increase in the floating rate of interest from 11% to 15.65% over a period of time i.e. from December 2016 to 31^st August 2020. There is overwhelming evidence, contrary to the contentions of the Complainant that Opposite Parties have been informing the Complainant from time to time regarding the increase of floating rate of interest and the change in the tenure of re-payment vide e-mails Annexure OP-6 [colly]. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Complainant was not aware about the increase in the floating rate of interest and change in the tenure of re-payment. This Commission is of the opinion that whenever a loan has been availed of at an adjustable rate of interest in that case the rate of interest can be changed by the financial institution in accordance with the change in the IMLR/interest rate/FRR in accordance with the guidelines in the RBI circular. Further, when the sanction letter clearly specified that the rate of interest will be that of adjustable type, no express consent from the borrower/ Complainant needs to be taken before the rate of interest or tenure/ re-payment is changed by the Opposite Parties. Therefore, the contention of the Complainant that the increase in the EMIs has been done unilaterally by applying higher rate of interest without intimating the Complainant is not tenable and as such, deserves to be dismissed.

 

11.         In these set of circumstances, it can safely be concluded that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties and the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.

 

12.         Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

13.         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

 

14.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

30^th Sept., 2022                                                   

Sd/-

                                                (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

                                                        (PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

                                                        (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”