- Rawats International Pvt. Ltd.
Represented by one of its Directors
Pradip Rawat
1 Height Road, Howrah-711204. _________ Complainant
____Versus____
- India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd.
Constantia Building, Ground Floor,
11, U.N. Brahmachari Street,
Kolkata-17, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani and
Corporate Office being at Indiabulls
House 448-451, Udhyog Vihar, Phase-V
Gurgayon – 122001. ________ Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 17 Dated 07-09-2015
The case of the complainant in short is that on 29.10.10 complainant entered into an agreement for loan amount of Rs.1,03,03,066/- being the account no.HHEKOL00074846 for purchasing a flat at Manikaran Complex, 2nd Floor, Flat 25A, Block Suryamani, Kolkata-10 of an area 3260 sq.ft. for EMI of Rs.1,48,925/-. While EMI against that loan account being paid regularly o.p. started to increase the rate of interest arbitrarily which was initially fixed at 11% per annum. Complainant understood that he could not bear the burden of increased rate of interest for the loan in question and therefore, requested the o.p. for foreclosure of the loan account. Complainant was then suggested by o.p. to pay the loan by way of foreclosure @ 5% of the loan amount. Complainant did not agree with the foreclosure charges. Complainant then aggrieved to pay the foreclosure charges but finding no other alternative had to pay the loan amount on 27.8.11 through RTGS along with foreclosure charges. On 27.8.11 complainant requested the o.p. for the original registered deed along with no due certificate but in vain. Complainant corresponded through various e-mails and o.p. through their e-mail replied the complainant expressing inability to waive the foreclosure charges. After repeated requests by complainant, o.p. only refunded Rs.1657/- towards excess payment against the loan which has been foreclosed. Several days have lapsed but complainant got no response from the end of the o.p. Hence the application praying for direction upon o.p. to pay the entire foreclosure charge of Rs.5,50,316/- with applicable interest along with compensation and cost.
O.p. appeared in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations interalia stated that it was agreed by and between the complainant the o.p. that in case the complainant wished to close the loan prior to the period of the loan. The complainant paid the prepayment charge of 5% (plus applicable tax) on the amount prepaid including the amount prepaid in the last one year. That as the same is part of the terms and conditions agreed to by and between the complainant and the o.p. there has been no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. in charging the said amount from the complainant.
In their w/v it is also stated that the contract of loan agreement is governed by the terms and conditions as contained in the loan agreement which are agreed upon and acted upon by the parties as such, in the eventuality of the complainant having opted for floating rate of interest the o.p. is well within their rights to charge the floating rate of interest.
In their w/v it is also stated that National Housing Bank has issued “The Housing Finance Companies (NHB) Directions, 2010”. In terms of which, no restriction has been imposed upon the Housing Finance Companies for fixing their prime lending rate. National Housing Bank has accordingly vide circular No.HB (ND) / DRS / POL-No.16/2006 has advised the Housing Finance Companies to implement Fair Practice Code. Further vide circular No.(ND) / DRS /POL-No.29/2009 National Housing Bank while giving liberty to Housing Finance Companies to fix rate of interest and has advised them to display the same in their Fair Practice Code. The Prime Lending Rate of o.p. was accordingly determined from time to time, in light of the Regulatory Guidelines.
O.p. also submitted in the w/v that after payment of the foreclosure amount o.p. had issued no due certificate in favour of the complainant as well as returned the original title deed. So there is no question of deficiency on the part of o.p. and hence the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. The moot question of consideration is whether the complaint case is maintainable or not before the Consumer Forum. It is admitted fact that the loan in question was availed of by the company for commercial activity. As per Sec 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 if a person hires or avails of the services for a consideration for any commercial purpose shall not qualify as a consumer. This consumer does not fall within the scope and ambit of the definition of the consumer since the complainant / company does not run its business for livelihood purpose through self employment. In Birla Technology Ltd. vs. Neutral Glass and Allied Industries Ltd. 2011 (1) SCC 525 and Sanjay D. Ghodhawat vs. R.R.B. Energy Ltd., IV 2010 COJ 178 NC case decided by the Hon’ble National Commission similar principle of law was followed. So, in the instant case the complainant cannot be termed as consumer in the ambit of the C.P. Act, 1986. Moreover, o.p. has charged the amount as per terms and conditions.
In view of above, we find that complainant has failed to substantiate its case and is not entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
