Delhi

North East

CC/38/2021

Sh. Balveer Gupt. - Complainant(s)

Versus

India Bulls Housing Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

13 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 38/21

In the matter of:

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Anil kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant and his wife availed the housing loan from Opposite Party by mortgaging his property having bearing unit no. 207, 2^nd Floor, Tower E, OXY Homez, Village-Behtha Hazipur, Pargana- Loni, Tilla More Road, Ghaziabad, U.P and were initially having loan account numbers HHLNOD00247791 and HHLNOD00229505 respectively and those loan account number were transferred by Opposite Party to HHLNOD00374524 and HHLNOD00372934 due to technical reasons. The Opposite Party had issued sanction letter dated 22.05.15 and 31.10.15 wherein it is stated that the loan would be disbursed 9.90% and @ 9.55% p.a. respectively and the nature of interest would be floating rate of interest. In September 2017, the Complainant updated his mail address. The Complainant stated that in August 2019 Opposite Party started to charge exorbitant rate of interest varying from 8.55 % to 12.55 %.  Thereafter, Complainant lodged a written complaint to Opposite Party. Opposite Party by way of several emails dated 18.09.19, 15.10.19 and 18.10.19 admitted the mistakes committed upon Complainants. The Complainant stated that wrong email address was registered by Opposite Party in their system as a result of which Opposite Party could not intimate or communicate Complainant about development regarding rate of interest. The Opposite Party emails dated 18.09.2019, 15.10.2019 and 18.10.2019 sent intimation letter to Complainant during period of November 2018 and December 2018 in respect of increased rate of interest from Indian Postal Department. The Opposite Party has deducted exorbitant rate of interest amounting to Rs. 11,191/- from September 2018. The Complainant stated that he issued various emails/ complaints for refunding the amount of Complainant from October 2018 to September 2019 but Opposite Party did not give any proper reply to Complainant’s complaint. The Complainant stated that due to non-cooperation by Opposite Party Complainant was constrained to transfer both the Housing loan accounts from Opposite Party to another bank during the period September, 2019. Opposite Party did not send any intimation or information to Complainant in respect of his loan accounts when Opposite Party already had his current registered email Id.  The Complainant approached Opposite Party in respect of exorbitant rate being charged, Opposite Party did not relent and stated that Opposite Party is charging interest as per RBI guidelines. Despite repeated requests, Opposite Party failed to reconcile the balance dues of Complainant as per the agreed terms.  The Complainant also sent legal notice to Opposite Party dated 01.01.21 through speed post and courier. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 1,50,000/- .  He further prayed for Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 11,000/- for litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. The Opposite Parties contested the case and filed common filed written statement. It is stated that the present complaint is not maintainable as this Hon’ble Consumer Forum does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present alleged dispute as the property which is offered as a security for the repayment of loan is based at Ghaziabad, U.P. Hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
3. That the present complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant is not a consumer as the Complainant had purchased mortgaged property with intention to earn huge profit by selling the same and not for own residential purposes hence the Complainant is not covered under the definition of the consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Thus this Hon’ble District Consumer Forum does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the alleged dispute and thereby the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. It is submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant admittedly stated that the Complainant paid the entire loan amount and no amount is pending as on date and thereby No Due Certificate dated 20.09.2019 is issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant. Thus the relationship between Complainant and Opposite Party has come to an end with receipt of NOC from Opposite Party and property documents. Moreover, the present complaint does not disclose any cause of action and/or there is no cause of action against the Opposite Party.
5. It is submitted that the Complainant approached Opposite Party for availing a loan in may 2015 and submitted his representations and documents, upon verification Opposite Party sanctioned and agreed to disburse Rs. 11,06,108/- Vide Loan Account No. HHLNOD00 229505 accordingly, a loan agreements dated 04.06.2015 was executed between the Complainant and Opposite Party. It is further submitted that the Complainant re-approached Opposite Party in November 2015 for availing loan Rs. 4,00,000/- and the same was duly sanctioned and accordingly, a loan Agreement was executed on 23.11.2015 thereafter the loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- was disbursed vide Loan Account No. HHLNOD00 247791 by Opposite Party. It is submitted that the loan account of the Complainant was changed due to some technical reason the old Loan Account No. HHLNOD00 229505 was changed to HHLNOD00 372934 and old records was transferred to the new Loan Account No. And it was assured to the Complainant that all terms and conditions will remain the unchanged and this information was shared with Complainant vide mail dated 10.10.17 on the email Id nd Floor, Tower E, OXY Homez Village Betha, Hajipur, Pargana, Loni, Tilla More Road, Ghaziabad as security for the repayment of the aforesaid loan amount remained valid for new loan accounts.
6. It is submitted that the upon the issue raised by the Complainant regarding incorrect email id, the Opposite Party immediately rectified and updated the email address and sent the intimation letters on the fresh updated email address and also paid the amount in lieu of delay of rate of interest change intimation.
7. It is vehemently denied that the Opposite Party started charging exorbitant rate of interest which was clearly against the guidelines issued regularly by Reserve Bank of India. It is denied that the interest rate upon the EMIs could not have been increased by Opposite Party unilaterally without the express consent of the Complainant as alleged. It is submitted that the Opposite Party has always charged the interest in strict compliance to the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement entered into between the parties keeping in view the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India issued from time to time.
8. It is denied that the Opposite Party admitted mistake by way of several emails dated 18.09.2019, 15.10.2019 and 18.10.2019 committed on the Complainant as alleged. It is also vehemently denied that any reply by Opposite Party indicated admission by the Opposite Party that wrong mailing address was registered with the Opposite Party in the system as alleged. It is also denied that Opposite Party could not communicate or intimate Complainant about the developments regarding the rate of interest as alleged. It is denied that the Complainant closed his both home loans due to this exorbitant rate of interest and the way they have done it as alleged. It is submitted that upon receipt of intimation regarding change of email address, the Opposite Party rectified the email address in the system and sent the intimation to the effect of change of interest rate on the updated email address as well.
9. It is denied that the Opposite Party started making lame excuses regarding proof and POD details and said that the same is not being traceable as alleged. It is submitted the Opposite Party sent the intimation letter to the Complainant regarding change of interest rate and the same could be verified from the postal department. Further, due to incorrect email address registered in the system the mails were being delivered to the old email address of the Complainant. However, upon the issue being raised by the Complainant the Opposite Party sent the intimation on the email address of the Complainant presently being used by him and also refunded the amount as stated therein in lieu of delay in rate of interest change intimation.  Further, it is submitted that the Complainant has paid off the loan amount tothe Opposite Party without any objections and demurs and nothing isdue and payable to the Opposite Party and thereby No Due Certificate is also issued to the Complainant. Thus the present complaint has been filed only with mala fide intentions filed as an afterthought to extract money from the Opposite Party by putting pressure on the Opposite Party by way of present complaint.
10. It is vehemently denied that he Opposite Party has committed any unfair trade practice and deficiency in services as alleged. It is denied that the Opposite Party refunded the illegally deducted exorbitant rate of interest amounting to Rs. 11,191/- for the period till September, 2018 as alleged. It is submitted that the Complainant has stated that Complainant has received refund of Rs. 11,191/- on account of deducting enhanced rate of interest without informing the Complainant. Accordingly, Opposite Party is not liable to any refund in lieu of delay in sharing the letter and thereafter Complainant foreclosed his loan account and the property documents were handed over to the Complainant. Thereafter, in view of the payments made to the Opposite Party “No Due Certificate” was issued to the Complainant.
11. It is submitted that the Complainant availed home loan on the basis of Adjustable interest Rate and as per the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement as agreed between the parties, that the Opposite Party may change the applicable rate of interest at its’ sole discretion with prospective effect with prior written communication and the same shall be acceptable to the Complainant. It is important to note that the Complainant has foreclosed his loan account without any issue or objection regarding any reason whatsoever and thereby No Due Certificate is issued by the Opposite Party and the same was duly accepted with any protest or demur from the Complainant.
12. It is submitted that the Complainant has been taking contradictory stands that on one had the Complainant is stating that the Opposite Party has refunded the amount and the Complainant has paid off the loan amount and the same is closed and No Due Certificate is issued and on the contrary the Complainant is stating that the Opposite Party failed to reconcile the balance dues of the Complainant as per the agreed terms.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

13. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party    wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party  and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

14. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

15. In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Alok Ranjan, Manager Legal of Opposite Party wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

16. We have heard the Complainant in person and Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party. The case of the Complainant is that he took a home loan from the Opposite Party in the year of 2015 with a nature of interest would be floating rate of interest. Opposite Party increased the rate of interest without giving any intimation to him.  When he approach the Opposite Party, Opposite Party admitted that wrong email address was registered by them in their system as a result of which Opposite Party could not intimate or communicate the Complainant about development regarding rate of interest. The Opposite Party had deducted exorbitant rate of interest amounting to Rs. 11,191/- from September 2018 and in spite of various emails/complaints for refunding the said amount, Opposite Party did not give any proper reply to Complainant. The Complainant stated that due to non-cooperation by Opposite Party, Complainant was constrained to transfer both the Housing loan accounts from Opposite Party to another bank in September, 2019. Opposite Party did not send any intimation or information to Complainant in respect of his loan accounts when Opposite Party was having his email id. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party.
17. The case of the Opposite Parties is that the Complainant availed loan in 2015 and loan agreement was executed between Opposite Party and Complainant providing loan on floating rate of interest. It is submitted by the Opposite Party that on the issue raised by the Complainant regarding incorrect email id on which Opposite Party was sending intimation regarding increase in the rate of interest. The Opposite Party immediately rectified and updated the email address and send the intimation letter on the fresh updated email address and also paid the amount in lieu of deducting enhanced rate of interest without proper intimation. It is also denied by the Opposite Party that they have charged exorbitant rate of interest which was clearly against the guidelines issued guidelines issued regularly by Reserve Bank of India. It is also denied by the Opposite Party that the interest rate upon the EMIs could not have been increased by Opposite Party unilaterally without the express consent of the Complainant as alleged. It is stated by the Opposite Party that they have always charged the interest in strict compliance to the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement entered into between the parties keeping in view the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India issued from time to time. It is further submitted by the Opposite Party that the Complainant availed home loan on the basis of floating rate of interest and as per the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement as agreed between the parties, the Opposite Party may change the applicable rate of interest at its’ sole discretion with prospective effect with prior written communication and the same shall be acceptable to the Complainant. It is important to note that the Complainant has foreclosed his loan account without any issue or objection regarding any reason whatsoever and thereby No Due Certificate is issued by the Opposite Party and the same was duly accepted with any protest or demur from the Complainant.
18. In view of the above arguments, in our opinion Opposite Party had duly refunded Rs. 11,191/- on account of deducting enhanced rate of interest without informing the Complainant which is admitted by the Complainant. Hence there is no deficiency of service on behalf of the Opposite Party. In the similar case Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal no.454 of 2021 titled as ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Vishnu Bansal held as under:-

 “ 9. In so far as taking consent of the Complainant is concerned, we are of the considered view that the bank was well within its rights to increase or decrease the rate of interest under the floating rate of interest provided for in the loan agreement executed between the bank and the Complainant and any additional or further consent from the Complainant was not required, the same having already been agreed to in the loan agreement itself. There is nothing on record to shows that either the bank had fixed the rates of interest in any erroneous way contrary to the principles and the guidelines applicable or had differentiated between similarly situate borrowers in this respect.

10 ……….

Even otherwise, monthly instalments were being deducted from the Complainant’s bank account towards repayment of his home loan and he was servicing his loan on a regular continuing basis. A reasonable man of ordinary prudence in the normal course would be aware of his repayment schedule(s), when the deductions were being made from his own bank account.”

19. In view of the above, the complaint is dismissed.
20. Order announced on 13.09.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.