Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/423/2023

ANIL KUMAR BABBAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDIABULLS PVT LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

KAMAL GROVER

06 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/423/2023
Date of Institution	:	1/9/2023
Date of Decision	:	6/8/2024

 

1. Anil Kumar Babbar, aged 57 Years old s/o Sh. Kashmiri Lal Babbar r/o Flat No.19, Om Villa, Golden Enclave, block E, Lohgarh road, Zirakpur District SAS Nagar Mohali.

 

2. Isha Rani w/o Anil Kumar Babbar r/o Flat No. 19, Om Villa, Golden Enclave, block E, Lohgarh road, Zirakpur District SAS Nagar Mohali.

 

3. Pooja Babbar d/o Anil Kumar Babbar r/o Flat No.19, Om Villa, Golden Enclave, block E, Lohgarh road, Zirakpur District SAS Nagar Mohali.

complainants

VERSUS

 

1.IndiaBulls Pvt. Ltd through its Branch Credit Manager, India Bulls Pvt. Ltd, SCO No,337,338, GF, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh 160036.

2.Vice Chairman MD, IndiaBulls Pvt. Ltd, 5th Floor, Building No. 27, KG Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110001

3. Gupta Property Developers Pvt. Ltd through its director Subhash Chander Gupta c/o village Juddi Kalan, Baddi-Barotiwala road, near Fire Station, Baddi (HP)- 173205

 

...opposite parties

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Anil Kumar Babbar, Complainant No.1 in person and Mrs. Isha Rani, Complainant No.2 in person, being Authorized Representative of Complainant No.3. Ms. Niharika Goel, Advocate for OP No.1 & 2. OP No.3 ex-parte.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

     Briefly stated in the year 2018, Opposite party India Bulls representatives approached the Complainant with one advertisement of the newspaper published by the Opposite Party Gupta Property Developers Pvt ltd., wherein it was advertised that any non-resident of Himachal Pradesh can buy their flat situated at Baddi. After thorough discussion, the Opposite Parties assured that complainant can buy the flat in Himachal Pradesh. Opposite Party No.1&2 India Bulls assured that they had verified all the documents of this project and hence they are financing the whole project. Due to assurance of Opposite party No.1&2, complainant contacted the Opposite Party No.3 builder who offered rent facility for 10 years to the complainant. Due to all these assurances, complainant entered into agreement and booked one flat No. 140-B, 1 floor, Category type 2, Block B, New Town Apartment, Village Mauza Juddi, Kalan Tehsil Baddi, District Solan (HP) in the name of his wife i.e complainant no.2 and also took loan from Opposite Parties India Bulls Housing finance Ltd. (IBHFL) to purchase this flat. The Opposite party  No.1&2 sanctioned and released the full and final loan amount of Rs.5,58,000 with a Rate of interest @8.55 Per Annum. But few days back, complainants came to know that Opposite Party India Bulls finance company i.e OPs no.1 and 2 is recovering very high Rate of interest @13.75% per Annum on his Home loan accounts instead of 8.5% without any confirmation or acknowledgement of the complainants. Whereas in the whole market prevailing ROI for home loan is same i.e 7% to 8.5%.  After enquiry, Opposite Parties take a plea that due to non-execution of the registry of the flat, Opposite Parties had increased the ROI of the home loan and also deduct few charges for non execution of the registry of the flat. It is alleged that the sale transaction of the flat purchased by the complainant is not valid in the eyes of law in the absence of sanctioned letter or permissible area to be soldout to non-residence of Himachal Pradesh by the Government of Himachal Pradesh but they kept the complainant waiting since 5 years and the complainant is running from pillor to post to get the registry done of the flat in question. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1&2 Opposite Party   whiled denying the allegations made in the complainant stated that the answering Opposite Party is legally entitled to recover the EMIs from the Complainants after the expiration of subvention/ liability period as per the covenants of the Tripartite Agreement and the Complainants are bound to fulfill their contractual obligations. Moreover, the answering Opposite Party is not concerned with the conduct and commitments of O.P. No. 3, as alleged by the Complainants in the present Complaint and the answering Opposite Party is only concerned with the repayment of its EMIs which Complainants are liable to recover after expiration of the liability period. It is further submitted that the complainants had approached the answering opposite party and no loan was sanctioned to the Opposite Party no.3. The loan amount was disbursed as per the request of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainants are trying to wiggle out of its legal obligation to repay the loan amount. The complainants approached the answering opposite party after entering into a flat buyer's agreement. The complainants had chosen the builder their own and represented in the tripartite agreement that the complainants are satisfied with the capabilities of the Op no. 3 to complete the project. The answering Opposite Party is a mere financer who approved the loan amount on the basis of the representations made by the complainants. It is submitted that no illegal charges or excess amount has been collected by the answering opposite party. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. OP No.3 did not turn up despite due service, hence vide order dated 3.11.2024, it was proceeded against exparte.
4. No rejoinder filed.
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The main grievance of the complainant is that the interest on loan availed by him from OPs No.1&2  has been increased arbitrarily and is not in consonance with the existing interest rates in other banks and the OP No.3 has not been able to get the registry of the flat done till date inspite of paying the sale consideration of the flat.
8. On perusal of Annexure OP-3 and OP-8, it is observed that the complainant has been sanctioned first loan of Rs.10,47,638/- against property and second loan of Rs.6,18,000/- as home loan by Ops No.1&2 with adjustable rate of interest.
9. On perusal of clause 2.2(c) of the Loan agreement  Annexure OP-4 & OP-9, it is observed that there is a mention that interest rate may be changed with  prospective effect with prior written communication. The relevant portion of the aforesaid clause is as under:-

would be the Loan amount.

 “2.2. Interest

(a) x x x x x x x

(b) x x x x x x x x x

(c) The ascertainment of rate of interest, besides others, are based on risk analysis of the Borrowers and that of the security offered for Repayment of the loan amount, as per IHFL rules, policy and sanction conditions. In case of change in risk weightage during the loan facility, due to external and internal factors, breach of the covenants, terms and conditions as stipulated herein, IHFL may change the applicable rate of interest, at its sole discretion, with prospective effect with prior written communication and shall be acceptable to the Borrower(s) Decision of IHFL to this effect will be final and binding on the Borrower(s).”

 

10. The Ops No.1&2 have failed to adduce any  receipt of document on record having been sent to the complainants intimating  about change of interest rate. Hence, in our opinion OPs No.1&2 failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement, hence, they are not competent to change  rate on interest. They can only charge the rate of interest as mentioned in loan sanction letter Annexure OP-3  i.e. 10.50%  per annum for Ist loan and 8.55% per annum for the second loan as is evident from Annexure OP-8.
11. So far as OP No.3 is concerned, the OP No.3 despite receiving huge amount from the complainant did not get the property registered, which is deficiency on its part and  despite being duly served, it failed to appear or come forward to contradict the allegations set out in the present complaint despite being duly served, which raised a reasonable presumption that the Opposite Parties have failed to render due service to the complainant and have nothing to contradict meaning thereby that they duly admits the claim of the complainant. 
12. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed in the following manner:-

1. Ops No.1&2 are directed to workout fresh statement of loan accounts of the complainants by treating the  first loan carrying annual rate of interest @10.50% and the second loan carrying annual rate of interest @8.55% within a period of 45 days.
2. OP No.3  is directed to refund the amount paid by the complainants towards the property in question alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date  of deposit till onwards.
3. OPs  shall pay ₹30,000/-  jointly and severally to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
4. OPs shall also pay ₹7,500/- jointly and severally to the complainants as costs of litigation.

13. This order be complied with by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) (to be paid by OP No.3) & (iii) (to be paid by the Ops jointly and severally) shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(ii)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
15.  Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member   Sd/-
6/8/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member