DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 284 of 08-10-2009<br /> Decided on : 11-05-2010 <br /> <br /> Darshan Singh S/o Sh. Baltej Singh R/o H. No. 22437, Street No. 8, Bhagu Road, Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., Corporate Office, Indiabulls House, 448-451, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Village Gurgaon, through its MD/Chairman<br /> 2.Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd., Bathinda-Goniana G.T. Road, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager. <br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member <br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. K.S. Dabrikhana,counsel for the complainant <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. J.D. Nayyar, counsel for <br /> opposite parties.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he obtained loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the opposite parties after executing all the requisite documents in this regard. The opposite parties had agreed to advance the said amount of loan on interest @17% P.A. which was to be repaid in 156 equal monthly installments. After taking the loan, the complainant has been regularly paying the amount of installments to the opposite parties as per repayment schedule. He alleged that the opposite parties without his knowledge and consent increased the rate of interest by 5% for which they had no right to do so. Due to the increase in the rate of interest, the complainant was required to pay 317 equal monthly installments instead of 156 installments as agreed upon at the time of release of loan by the opposite parties. For this act of the opposite parties, the complainant has applied foreclosure of his account and offered repayment of the entire balance amount but under the guise of this foreclosure, the opposite parties have charged an excess amount of Rs. 80,391/-. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 80,391/- with interest, charged from him and pay him compensation and cost. The complainant has led evidence in support of his allegations.<br /> 2. The opposite parties in their joint written version have explained that complainant has obtained loan on floating rate of interest and at the time of disbursement of loan, it was 17% but with gradual increase of this rate, it raised upto 22%. The letters were issued to the complainant from time to time intimating him for increase in rate of interest/PLR as well as tenure of the loan. The changes were in conformity with the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement duly executed by the complainant with the opposite parties. It has been pleaded that on the request of the complainant that he wanted to close his account by paying the entire loan amount, he had been asked to deposit the same with 5% foreclosure amount as mentioned in the agreement as well as in the sanctioned letter. The opposite parties have led evidence to rebut the evidence of the complainant.<br /> 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and opposite parties and also gone through the record. <br /> 4. The opposite parties have explained in their written version that complainant has obtained loan on floating rate of interest. To corroborate this fact, they have placed on file a copy of Loan Agreement Ex. R-2. From the perusal of its Schedule '1' it revealed that as per clause (a) Pre-EMI interest was 17% P.A. and as per clause (f) Foreclosure charges are 5%. Further it is also revealed that complainant has tick marked the option “floating rate of interest as per schedule 'B'” and signed the schedule. As per Ex. R-4 to Ex. R-6 the information regarding increased rate of interest has been sent to the complainant from time to time. <br /> 5. Ex. R-3 is the Settlement Approval Form from which it appears that opposite parties have charged foreclosure charges @3% instead of agreed rate i.e. 5% and waiver of Rs. 2525/- was given with regard to bouncing charges. After settlement of these amounts, the complainant has paid the entire loan amount in lump-sum.<br /> 6. Thus, from the perusal of record, it becomes clear that all the charges which have been taken by the opposite parties were as per terms and condition of the Loan Agreement Ex. R-2 which has been executed between the complainant and the opposite parties and the complainant has signed the same after admitting its contents as correct and nothing has been charged in excess. Rather the opposite parties have given waiver of Rs. 15,317/-. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is no merit in the complaint as the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.<br /> A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 11-05-2010 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> *ik Member Member <br /> <br />