PER SHRI. S.S. PATIL - HON’BLE MEMBER :
1) This is the complaint regarding the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties as the Opposite Parties initially sanctioned the loan in favour of the Complainants with the term of repayment of 10 years with installment (EMI) of Rs.7,884/- but subsequently they changed the term of repayment to 15 years causing financial loss to the Complainant.
2) The facts of the case, as alleged by the Complainant are that, the Opposite Party 1 is the Financial Company disbursing housing loans to the needy people and Opposite Party No.2 is the officer of the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainants applied for hosing loan of Rs.6 Lacks to the Opposite Parties with a term of repayment as 10 years and the rate of interest on this amount was Rs.13.25 % p.a. A loan offer letter dtd.12/01/2000 was issued by the Opposite Parties. It is the contention of the Complainants that from the contents of this letter the term of loan payment was wrongly mentioned as 15years but was duly corrected to 10 years with initials of the concerned officer. However, the perusal of this document reveals that the figure is overwritten as 05 not amounting to 10 years.
3) The loan account no was 910 104 380. The Complainant sent a letter dtd.10/02/2000 requesting as “As I see now that I can bear a higher monthly installment, I request you to further calculate my EMI. Reducing the repayment period to 10 years instead of 15 years.” (Ex.‘C’ to the complaint).
4) Opposite Party No.1 vide its letter dtd.07/04/2000 (Ex. ‘D’ to the complaint) sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.6 Lacs with interest rate of 13.25 % and the term of payment as 10 years having EMI Rs.7,884/- payable from May, 2000 to April, 2001. In this letter the Opposite Party No.1 has called up the Complainants to give 12 post dated cheques for the repayment of the said loan.
5) The Complainants stated that on 01/01/03 the Complainant visited Opposite Parties office for getting the loan transferred from fixed loan to floating loan category. At this point of time, the Complainant came to know that the loan term has been changed from 10 years to 15 years term. Therefore, the Complainant No.1 vide her letter dtd.04/01/03 protested this decision of the Opposite Parties.
6) The Opposite Party No.1 then vide its letter dtd.14/01/03 and on undated letters offered three options to adjust her loan repayment period with corresponding increase in the EMIs. In this letter dtd.14/01/03 the Opposite Party has mentioned that, “The loan was granted for 15 years and EMI was fixed to Rs.7,884/- p.m. as per discussion and your request, therefore, term was changed to 10 years but in advertantly EMI was not changed. This has resulted in the repayment term of 15 years for the loan. We would like to suggest you three options so that we may regularize the account. This option can be exercised only after completing rewriting procedure.
Option 1 : EMI 7,884/- ROI 10.25 % Balance Terms 9 years.
Option 2 : EMI 9,138/- ROI 09.75 % Balance Terms 7 years.
Option 3 : EMI 10,070/- ROI 09.75 % Balance Terms 6 years.
7) Meantime the Complainants deposited their post dated 12 cheques each of Rs.7,884/- for a period from April, 2003 to March, 2004. They were acknowledged by the Opposite Party No.1.
8) The Complainant vide her letter dtd.18/06/03 has reiterated that, she had applied for loan and the term of repayment of the loan was 10 years and not 15 years. This can clearly ascertained from the Loan Application Form. The Complainants furthers pointed out that if the change in the term of repayment is accepted as 15 yes, she would be required to pay installment for 5 more years causing financial loss of Rs.4,71,317.65.
9) It is also the contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Party No.1 kept on accepting EMI of Rs.7,884/- per month from May, 2000 upto March, 2004. It is only in June, 2003, the Complainants were informed that the term of her loan repayment was 15 years and not 10 years. As per the Complainant, this was an unilateral change in the terms and conditions of the contract of loan between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.1 has no right to change such conditions and terms unilaterally. The Complainant has further asserted that the mistake as alleged by the Opposite Party No.1 cannot be made inadvertently under computerized system. According to the Complainant, it is apparent that the EMI of Rs.7,884/- is for 10 years and not for 15 years.
10) The Complainants have finally prayed as under –
a) The Opposite Parties be directed to retrain from demanding and collecting EMIs of Rs.7,884/- or any other amount beyond
the 10 years of repayment term.
b) The Opposite Parties be directed to recalculate further EMIs as per the floating category loan w.e.f.01/01/03.
c) The Opposite Parties be directed to pay exemplary compensation of Rs.2 Lacs to the Complainant for causing mental
torture etc. and cost of Rs.20,000/-.
d) The Complainant had amended the prayer clause with the permission of this Forum as under -
“In the matter of relevant property being sold in respect of which housing loan was taken from LIC HFC in that case –
i) Repayment in excess of original prayer a) i.e. excess payment made over EMI of Rs.7,884/- with period beyond 10 years, the total term, the Opposite Parties shall be directed to refund such excess amount with interest to the Complainant.
ii) Confirm in writing the loan repayment period to be 10 years with EMI of Rs.7,884/- and direct the Opposite Parties to refund excess amount paid, with interest.”
11) The Complainants have attached the xerox copies of the following documents in support of their complaint.-
a) An application for loan of Rs. 2Lac, dtd.02/11/99.
b) Loan offer letter of the Opposite Party, dtd.12/01/2000.
c) Letter dtd.12/02/2000 from the Complainant.
d) Letter dtd.07/04/2000 from the Opposite Party.
e) Complainant’s letters dtd.04/01/03, 29/01/03.
f) Opposite Parties undated letters alongwith letter dtd.14/01/03.
g) Opposite Parties computer printout dtd.31/03/03.
h) MGP’s letter dtd.09/05/03.
i) Opposite Parties letter dtd.28/05/03.
j) Complainant’s letter dtd.18/06/03 and 17/07/03.
k) Opposite Parties letter dtd.22/07/03.
12) The complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties appeared before this Forum through their Ld.Advocate. They filed their written statement wherein the Opposite Parties have submitted that the Complainant No.1 vide her own letter dtd.10/02/2000 at Ex.‘C’ to the complaint, had requested the Opposite Parties to convert the said loan to reduce the repayment period from 15 years to 10 years. Therefore, according to the Opposite Parties the cuase of action has arisen in Feb.,2000. Therefore, the complaint being filed in Dec., 2003, it is time barred a alleged by the Opposite Parties.
13) The Opposite Parties have admitted that the Complainants approached the Opposite Parties and requested to disburse the loan of Rs.6 Lacs. Accordingly the Complainants had filed an application for this loan repayable in 15 years.
14) The Opposite Parties furthers submitted that they scrutinized this application for loan and a letter of intent was issued by them on 26/11/99 Exh.3 to the written statement. As per this letter, the amount of loan is 6 Lacs. repayable in 15 years.
15) The Opposite Party has further submitted that on 10/02/2000 the Complainant No.1 approached the Opposite Parties and requested to revise the term of payment from 15 years to 10 years as she was in a position to pay a bigger installment towards the repayment of the loan and further requested to recalculate the EMI taking into consideration the reduced period of repayment i.e. 10 years in place of 15 years.
16) It is the contention of the Opposite Parties that as per the request of the Opposite Party No.1 the revised term of repayment was corrected on her copy by Opposite Party No.2 from 15 years to 10 years and the Complainant No.1 was informed that the new EMI would be of Rs.9,402/- instead of Rs.7,884/-. In April, 2000 the loan of 6 Lacs was disbursed to the Complainants but due to inadvertence or bonafide mistake, the amount of revised EMI i.e. Rs.9,402/- was not mentioned in the original record of the loan proposal. The Complainants took advantage of this mistake and made payment of the loan by EMI of Rs.7,884/- till Dec., 2002. In Jan.,03 the Opposite Party realized the mistake and accordingly the Complainants were told to pay the difference in EMI till Dec., 2002. A revised schedule of repayment was given to the Complainants vide letter dtd.14/01/03 but the Complainant expressed their inability to comply with the revised schedule of repayment. In view of the above factual situation, the Opposite Parties stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and further prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost.
17) Thereafter the Complainant filed written argument wherein the facts mentioned in the complaint were reiterated by them. The Opposite Parties also submitted their written argument wherein they reiterated the facts mentioned in their written statement.
18) We heard the Complainant in person and the Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Parties and perused all the documents submitted by the Complainants and the Opposite Parties and our findings are as follows –
The Complainants had applied for loan of Rs.6 Lacs to the Opposite Parties vide their loan application dated.26/11/99. On the strength of this application, the Opposite Parties have issued a letter bearing No.PLO 2378, dtd.26/11/99 to both the Complainants. As per this letter the Opposite Parties were in principle prepared to sanction housing loans to the Complainants. As per this letter, the amount of loan is 6 Lacs and it is payable in 15 years. This letter is signed by the Area Manager of the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainants have suppressed this letter and the facts mentioned therein. The Complainants did not produce this letter.
19) The Opposite Party also issued a letter dtd.12/01/2000 addressed to both the Complainants. According to this letter the rate of interest is Rs.13.5. The loan amount is 6 Lacs and term of the loan – In this column, there is an over writing. The figure is converted into 10. The original figure is 15. The original letter bears the signature of the Area Manager and acceptance column bears the signature of 2nd Complainant i.e. Dharmendra Verma but the xerox copy of this letter bears the signature of the 1st Complainant. The other point of importance here is that, in original letter the figure of this period of repayment is converted as 10 while, by over writing while on xerox copy, the figure 15 is converted to 05. This creates a doubt regarding the genuineness of this particular figure 15 or 10 or 05 and not the entire letter and this is the only point of dispute between both the parties.
20) The Complainant No.1 had sent one letter dtd.10/02/2000 to the Opposite Party No.2 conspicuously having the captioned subject as “Repayment period to be reduced to 10 years instead of 15 years.” She has also stated in this letter that she can bear a higher monthly installment and the Opposite Parties to further calculate her EMI reducing the repayment period to 10 years instead of 15 years.
21) The Complainants have not submitted a letter dtd.26/11/99 addressed to them where the period of repayment was clearly mentioned as 15 years.
These facts as stated above clearly shows that originally the loan was offered with a term of repayment of 15 years and not 10 years as wrongly stated by the Complainants. In the month of Feb., 2000, the Complainant No.1 herself had requested Opposite Party No.2 to reduce this period to 10 years and accordingly the Opposite Parties reduced the period of repayment to 10 years instead of 15 years. At this point of time the Opposite Parties were to recalculate the EMIs taking into consideration the period of repayment, the rate of interest and amount of loan disbursed to the Complainant. The period of repayment is 10 years as per the request of the Complainant and the Opposite Parties were also acceded to this request. The rate of interest was finally approved by the Opposite Parties as 13.25 (Letter of Opposite Party dtd.07/04/2000) and the amount of loan is undisputedly Rs.6 Lacs. In the above said letter the Opposite Party No.1 had calculated the EMI to be of Rs.7,884/- taking into consideration the period of repayment, rate of interest and amount disbursed as loan. The Opposite Parties continued to accept this EMI till the end of 2002.
22) On 14/01/03 i.e. after 32 months from the date of repayment of the loan, the Opposite Party No.1 wrote a letter dtd.14/01/03 addressed to the Complainants informing them as under -
“The loan was granted for 15 years and EMI was fixed to Rs.7,884/- p.m. As per discussions and Complainant’s request the term was changed to 10 years but inadvertently EMI was not changed. This has resulted in the repayment term of 15 years. The Opposite Parties suggested the Complainants three options so that the Opposite Parties might regularized the account. The options were as below –
“i) EMI 7,884/- ROI 10.25 % balance term 9 years.
ii) EMI 9,138/- ROI 09.75 % balance term 7 years.
iii) EMI 10,070/- ROI 09.75 % balance term 6 years.
23) In the subsequent letter dtd.28/05/03 addressed to the Complainants, the Opposite Party No.1 has admitted that it was their mistake that the EMI was calculated as per terms 15 years and it was Rs.7,884/- but subsequently the term was changed to 10 years but the EMI REMAINED THE SAME i.e.7,884/- p.m. The Opposite Parties have specifically mentioned in this letter as follows -
“As per discussions and your request thereafter, term was changed to 10 years but inadvertently EMI was not changed accordingly. It was a human error. This is very simple and logical thing that if term of repayment is reduced, accordingly installment should be higher and vis a versa. This does not mean any financial loss to the person. Thus in this letter dtd.28/05/03, the Opposite Parties have admitted that they changed the term of repayment from 15 years to 10 years but they did not change the EMI is Rs.7,884/- p.m.
24) Though the Complainants are pleading that the loan was sanctioned basically for 10 years term, their contention does not hold water as stated earlier, that the papers submitted by both the parties clearly show that basically the loan was to be repaid within 15 years as revealed from a letter dtd.26/11/99 which had been suppressed by the Complainants. Even the subsequent letter dtd.12/01/2000 is also not clear to establish that the term was 10 years. It is seen clearly that the figure 15 is clearly changed to 10 and 05. The letter dtd.10/02/2000 of the Complainant itself clearly shows that the term of repayment was originally 15 years and the Complainant No.1 herself had requested to reduce it to 10 years.
25) The Opposite Parties have openly admitted their mistake in their letter dtd.28/05/03 that they calculated the EMI as of Rs.7,884/- on the basis of 15 years term of repayment but inadvertently the term was mentioned as 10 years as per the request of the Complainants. But the EMI remained the same i.e. Rs.7,884/- which should have been higher than that.
26) Therefore, in our considered opinion, the original term on which the loan was given, was 15 years, but as per the request of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties changed this term to 10 years. The Opposite Parties has admitted that it is their mistake that the EMI was not changed when the term of repayment was changed. It remained the same i.e. 7,884/-. They have admitted that it was their mistake and at this point of time the amount of EMI/p.m. should have been more than 7,884/- i.e. inversely proportionate to the decrease in the period of repayment. Under these circumstances the Complainants have taken the advantage of this mistake of the Opposite Parties and continued to pay the installments of Rs.7,884/- for 10 years term of repayment of Rs.6 Lacs loan.
27) We took into consideration the information supplied by the Complainants with their additional argument submitted on 04/03/2010. The Ex.1 attached to this argument is an extract of calculation of EMIs from Opposite Parties website http://www.lichousing .com/loans/emicalcu/asp. This calculation itself shows that for 6 Lacs Rs. loan with 13.25 % p.a. rate of interest and 10 years term of repayment, the EMI/p.m. comes to 9,047 and not 7,884/-. This clearly shows that the Opposite Parties had committed the mistake as stated earlier and the Complainants have taken the disadvantage of this mistake.
28) Thereafter on/or about 27/02/08 the Complainants have sold the flat property for which they have taken the loan from the Opposite Parties. They obtained the certificate from the Opposite Parties that, the Complainants have repaid the loan. For obtaining the N.O.C. from the Opposite Party the Complainant paid Rs.4,17,540/- to the Opposite Parties. Thus the Complainants made the repayment of the entire loan amount prematurely in Feb.,2008 as they old the flat property.
29) In this respect also the Complainants have failed to establish that the payment made by them in Feb., 2008 was excess in light of paragraph 29 above. Therefore, in our considered view and in light of para 28 and 29 above the Complainants have certainly failed to establish that they obtained the loan for the term of 10 years of repayment and not for term of 15 years. On the contrary from the papers produced by both the parties it appears that originally the loan was given to the Complainants for 15 years of term of repayment. The EMI was calculated to be 7,884/- but inadvertently the period of term of repayment was quoted as 10 years instead of 15 years.
30) Therefore, we do not interfere with the calculations made by the Opposite Parties and we do not find any deficiency in service on their part. As the Complainants have not substantiated the allegations of deficiency as discussed above. In the complaint, the Complainants have suppressed the facts as discussed earlier, they have taken the disadvantage of the mistake committed by the Opposite Parties and finally the Complainants failed to establish their contention that the Opposite Parties had charged excess EMI. In view of the above points we do not find any merit in this complaint and hence, we pass the following order –
O R D E R
i.Complaint No.04/2004 is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.
ii Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
