Punjab

Sangrur

CC/239/2023

Rekha Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC Housing Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Harminder Singh (In Person)

22 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR.

                                                                                        Complaint No. 239

                Instituted on :   08.08.2023 

                                                                                         Decided on  :     22.04.2024

1. Rekha Rani  aged 54 years wife of  Harminder Singh 2. Harminder Singh aged 55 years   son of Faqir Singh resident of 57, Kishanpura Basti, 5,Sangrur, District Sangrur-

      Complainants

                                                Versus

1. L.I.C.Housing Finance Limited, branch office SCO 127, First Floor, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala-147001 through its branch Manager.

2. L.I.C.Housing Finance Limited, Bombay Life Building, 2^nd Floor,

45/47, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai-400001, MH-400001.

          Opposite Parties.

•      JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

                                    KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

For Complainants :In Person

For Ops:Sh. Mohinder Pal Ahuja Adv.

ORDER BY;

KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

The complainant has alleged in this complaint that the complainants are law abiding citizens and are residing at the abovesaid address. The complainants availed home loan from OP.1 vide  Customer ID  No.542108   ( Loan Reference No.14017000158). The complainants  had taken loan of Rs.4,80,000/- from OP.1. OP.1  financed the loan on 24.04.2006 in favour of the complainants. It is pertinent to mention here that the term  for the above said loan was fixed for twenty years between the parties. The interest on the above said home loan was fixed at the rate of Rs.7.50% per annum, as per home loan agreement. The complainant have already paid home loan amount of Rs.9,02310/- to the Ops. The complainants shocked to know that the  rate of interest @14.55% per annum has been deducted by the Ops. The Ops have illegally and arbitrarily without the consent of the complainants have extended the  term  of home loan  till 07.01.2031. It amounts the violation  of the terms and conditions  of the home loan agreement.    The complainants moved an application dated 28.07.2023 by post to OP.1 tor e-assess the home loan amount and asked OP.1 to adjust the  enhanced rate of interest amount into the principal loan. The complainants lastly prayed that Ops may kindly be directed to re-assess the paid home loan amount @7.5% per annum and adjust the enhanced  interest into the principal loan amount and refund the  excess amount received from  the complainants alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. Further OPs. may kindly  be directed to pay Rs.30,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, ops appeared and filed written statement. The ops admitted that the complainant availed home loan from op no. 1. The customer ID no. 542108 vide loan no. 14017000158 and the term of the loan was 20 years. The ops admitted that the complaint is correct to the extent that rate of interest of the home loan was 7.5 % p.a. and complainant paid the amount of Rs. 902310/- in the loan account and the rate of interest @ 14.55% p.a. has been deducted by the ops. It is denied that ops have illegally and without the consent of the complainant extended the term of home loan till 07.01.2031. It is denied that the ops have violated the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Ops have legal right to revise the rate of interest and enhance the term of the loan as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement and other documents which was duly signed by the complainants after admitting the contents of the loan agreement and the same are binding upon the complainants. It is denied that the ops have committed the breach of the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India. Rather the ops are under the National Housing Bank and follow all instructions which was imposed by the higher authority. It is correct that the Loan EMIs have been auto deducted from the account of complainant no. 2. The complaint is correct that the complainant no. 1 sent a vague application dt. 28.07.2023 by post to op no. 1 and op no. 1 sent reply on 01.08.2023 and the remaining allegations are denied by the ops.

In legal objections ops pleaded that present complaint is totally time barred as complainants were get the certificate pertaining the outstanding of the loan amount etc. against them in the every year for deposit the income tax return from the beginning of the loan in question. The complicated issues are involved in the present complaint and the same will be decided by led the elaborate evidence in the civil court not in the summary proceedings before this Commission. The complainants did not come with clean hand in the Commission and they are concealing the material facts from the Commission. On one side complainant party is taking rebate from the income tax department on the amount of interest paid on loan amount from the day they availed the loan and on the other side complainants are claiming that the duration and rate of interest of the loan amount has been fixed by the ops wrongly and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainants may kindly be dismissed with the exemplary costs.

3.       On the other hand, the complainants filed the rejoinder and pleaded that para No.2 of the reply of Ops. admitted that complainant availed loan vide account No.14017000158 and the term was fixed for 20years by the Ops. Without the consent of the complainants. Loan maturity date is fixed upto 07.01.2031 as per loan statement of account OPs enhanced loan term arbitrarily and illegally, which is directly an unfair  trade practice qua the complainants. The complainants are  paying all the EMI’s of loan regularly to the Ops.The para No.3 of the reply of Ops.are admitted that rate of interest of home loan was 7.50% per annum and also admitted that complainants  paid home loan of Rs.9,02,310/- in the loan account and rate of interest @14.55% per annum has been deducted by the Ops. Admission by the Ops. is the best evidence and as such no need to prove  the same. However, on the Website of the Ops. Interest rate has been mentioned as 8.30% to 9-00% per annum for the salaried consumers. Ops. are not using the same yardstick to their innocent consumers for the purpose of interest. Ops. Have clearly admitted the violation of terms and conditions of the loan agreement loan documents and the terms  and conditions of the agreement which was not provided to the complainant by the Ops. Before the eye of law these types of loan agreements are  deemed  to be  unilateral contracts. The para No.4 of reply of the Ops. Is admitted that the loan  amount EMI’s have been auto deducted from the account of complainant No.2. The complainant visited many times to the office of Ops. to settle the loan account but the  Ops. denied only to save the skin. The para No.5 of the reply of Ops. is admitted that complainant No.1 sent an application dated 28.07.2023 by Post to OP.No.1The complainants disclose the true facts about the loan  liability in the income tax returns with regard to the salaried employee. Ops.are avoiding from their liabilities, so they are taking one pretext  to another. Consumer Protection Act is a special Act, it prevails  on the general Act. So the present complaint is maintainable. Complainants are innocent consumers of Ops. Ops. Committed unfair trade practice qua the complainants. Complainants have come to the  Hon’ble Commission with clean hands.  Reply to para No.5 of legal objections is that complainant is Government employee, so he is duty bound to provide true and correct information to the Income Tax Department. Moreover rebate facility is not provided by the Ops. qua the complainants. “A person who seeks  equity must do equity”

4.     In support of her case the complainants tendered into evidence  Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-26 and Ex.C-4 Attested   affidavit  of Complainant and closed evidence.

5.     On the other hand, to rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties has produced  documents i.e  Ex.Ops/1 to Ex.Ops/4 and Ex.Ops/5 Affidavit  and closed evidence.   

6.     We have heard the learned counsel for  parties and gone through the record file carefully  with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. During arguments the contentions of both the parties are similar to their respective pleadings, so  there is no need to reiterate the same to avoid repetition.

7.             Now, come to major controversy, whether the complainants are liable for relief as claimed by her/him in their prayer or  not?

This Commission has considered the following isuues for proper adjudication of the case. Main arguable points for determination:

1.       Whether the Ops are entitled to enhance the home loan term  from 20 years to 25 years without the consent of the complainants?

2.       Whether the Ops are legally entitled to enhancement rate of interest from 7.50% to 14.55% without the information to the complainant as per clause 2.6(iv) of the loan agreement?

3.Whether the complainant is entitled for adjust the enhanced interest into the principal loan amount and refund the excess amount from the Ops.?

It transpires from the prusal of  Ex.Ops.1 page No.3 loan term mentioned as 20 years. As per Ex.Ops.2 the loan amount was settled between the parties for 20 years. As per written statement of Ops. Para No.2 it is admitted by the Ops. That the term of the loan was 20 years. As per Ex.C1 the loan term commenced from 24.04.2006. Ops. enhanced the loan term without the consent of complainants as per reply of Ops. Para No.3 mentioned upto 07.01.2031 illegally and arbitrarily. The act and conduct of the Ops. amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service qua  the complainants. As per Ex.Ops/3 loan agreement terms and conditions article 2 clause  2.6(iv) fifth line provide as under:-

                   The information as to the revision of applicable/applied floating rate during the financial year of LICHFL to the  Borrower/s annually.

No party can go beyond the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The terms and conditions are binding upon the parties of the home loan agreement.  Ops. did not provide intimation to the complainant regarding the revised rate of interest. The Ops. Committed unfair trade practice qua the complainants. The rate  of interest settled between the parties 7.50% P.A. as per Ex.Ops.2 the Ops admitted this fact in their  written statement in para No.3 that interest of home loan was 7.50% per annum, during arguments the contentions of the complainants are that as per Ex. C7 to Ex.C26 the detail of rate of interest uploaded by Ops in their official website which was downloaded by the complainant. Some important rate of interest slab mentioned as under:-:

As per  Ex.C7 rate of interest for salaried persons described as 8.55% per annum, Ex.C8 interest 8.50%, Ex.C9 interest 8.50%, Ex.C12 interest 8.30%, Ex.C12 interest 8.75%, Ex.C16 interest 8.55% Ex.C17 interest 8.05% to 8.75% Ex.C22 interest 8.30%.     per contra, It transpire from the perusal of the Ops/5 and affidavit tendered by Ops to prove their case. In the affidavit Sh. Navneet Tanwar branch Manager of Op.1 solemnly affirm on oath in para no. 2 &3 and admitted that the complaint is correct to the extent that the rate of interest was 7.50% p.a. and the complainant paid home loan amount of Rs. 9,02,310/- and the rate of interest @ 14.55% p.a. has been deducted by the Ops. Ops have legal right to revise the rate of interest and enhance the term of the loan as per loan agreement. After admitting the contents of loan agreement.  Complaints duly singed by the loan agreement and the same are binding upon the complainants. It transpires from the perusal of pleading of reply of Ops, it is specifically admitted by the Ops that the loan EMI’s have been auto deducted from the account of the Complainant  no.2.As per Ex.Ops/4 statement of account of loan reference number mentioned as 311600000490. The customer ISF Id mentioned as 3883584. Further, the consumer name mentioned as Deepak Jindal. The customer address mentioned as Barnala, Punjab. The co-applicants/borrower details mentioned as Swaran Kanta and the relationship mentioned as co-applicant. Further it is mentioned the loan amount of Rs. 12,75,000/- and EMI received Rs. 16,50,624/-. The loan maturity date mentioned as 7.7.2032. However, Ops issued letter dated 02.1.2024 last page of Ex.Ops/4 mentioned as  to Mr. Deepak Jindal/Miss Swaran Kanta, near old telephone Exchange Ward no. 6, Barnala, Plot No./House No. B-11-684, Barnala, Punjab – 148101. It is further mentioned total amount sanctioned Rs. 12,75,000/- in loan account : 311600000490. Op. no. 1 embosses the round stamp on the same on each and every page of Ex. Ops/4. This Commission has the considered opinion that Ex.Ops/4 has no concern with the present case in hand. Ex.Ops/4 is irrelevant in toto in the instant case. We feel that the Ops document Ex.Ops/4 is not helpful to prove their innocence. On the other hand, reply of Ops in para no. 2 and Ex.Ops/5 affidavit on oath in para no. 2, it is specifically mentioned the customer Id no. is 542108 vide loan no. 14017000158 and term of loan was 20 years settled between the complainants and Ops.

As far as concerned the first issue whether Ops are legally entitled to enhance the home loan term from 20 years to 25 years without the consent of the complainants?

This Commission has examined the terms and conditions of the home loan agreement. There is neither mentioned in any where the terms & conditions of the agreement nor Ops pleaded in their reply that Ops are legally entitled to enhance the loan term from 20 to 25 years under which specific clause of the terms and condition of the home loan agreement. It is incumbent upon the Ops to produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy material evidence to prove this factum that Ops have a legal right to enhance the loan term. Ops miserably failed to prove this factum that home loan term extended from 20 to 25 years under which provision of the terms and conditions of the home loan agreement. From this angle, Ops are liable for unfair trade practice qua the complainants.

With regard to second issue in the light of clause 2.6(IV) of the loan agreement provides “ The last revision of floating rate during such year shall be intimated by LICHFL to the borrowers annually”.

It is writ large on the file Ops did not produce a single piece of evidence with regard to intimation for revision of floating rate of interest from 7.5% to 14.55% p.a. provided to the complainant. Ops pleaded in their affidavit on oath of Ex.Ops/5 in para no. 3 as well as in para no. 3 of Ops reply that the rate of interest @14.55% p.a. has been deducted by the Ops. Moreover, the verification of the affidavit of Ex.Ops/5 specifically mentioned that the affidavit of para no. 1 to 10 are true and correct as per the information derived from the official record. Furthermore, branch manager of Op.1 put his signature and embosses the officials stamp on the affidavit. The affidavit attested by the notary public. In this juncture, this Commission has the considered view that the Ops  did not provide prior intimation  by which method has been given to the complainant for enhancement of the revised interest. " A man can lie, but document can't."

As per Ex.Ops/1 application for housing loan on page no. 3, it is specifically mentioned “the term 20 years”. From the perusal of Ex.Ops/2, complainant had obtained loan amount of Rs. 4,80,000/- on 24.4.2006 as per Ex.C1, statement of account under the scheme of “Griha Prakash”. It is specifically mentioned at serial no. 3(1) rate of interest floating. (No.2) mentioned as  special concessional rate of interest 7.50% p.a.. The term of the loan was 20 years. The serial no. 6(b) equated monthly installment fixed between the parties  of Rs.3867/-. As per serial no. 6(c) number of EMI’s was fixed 240. While as per Ex.C1 tenure(months) has shown as 276 meaning thereby Ops extended loan term  illegally and  arbitrarily which are void as per the terms and the conditions of the home loan agreement.

8.   It is writ large on the file the terms and condition of the loan agreement there is no mentioned anywhere with regard to the ops have any legal right to extend the EMI’s from Rs.3867 to Rs.5333. The act and conduct of the ops are fully proved that the ops committed unfair trade practice qua the complainant. We feel that in the absence of authentic and lawful terms and conditions of the home loan agreement regarding the enhancement of loan term from 20 years to 25 years without the consent of the complainant and increased the interest rate from 7.50% to 14.55% p.a. by the Ops without the prior intimation of rate of interest to the complainant. It  is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of Ops qua the complainant. From the perusal of Ex.C1 statement of account this Commission has the considered opinion that the complainant EMI’s  were auto deducted from the account of the complainant. Moreover, this factum also pleaded by Ops in their reply as well as in their affidavit in para no. 4 of Ex.Ops/5.  Ops admitted in their reply in para 3 and in affidavit para no. 3 that the complainant had paid home loan amount of Rs. 9,02,310/-. As per Ex.Ops/2, both the parties put their  signature for its correctness on 30.3.2006 at the time of execution of the utmost important document which  is Ex.Ops/2. Op.1 embosses their official stamp on the same. Complainant has referred the  celebrity judgment passed by    Hon’ble Dehli State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled as “Vishnu Bansal vs ICICI Bank Ltd.”in complaint No.163/2019 decided on 11.05.2021. In this case Hon’ble Commission on the similar facts   held that the ops to pay an amount of Rs. 1,62,093/- along with interest.

9. During arguments the complainants produced copy of Bank statement in which complainants are claiming that they had paid the loan amount of Rs.9,55,640/- upto 07.04.2024 where as complainants are liable to pay  the loan amount of Rs.9,28,043/- only.  

10. Resultantly, keeping in view of the  facts and the peculiar circumstances of the case   in hand  and with  careful  analysis  of the evidence available on record  and in the light of the decision of the above said case  we partly allow the complaint and  We direct  the  Ops to  refund   the  enhanced  paid  amount of  Rs.27,597/- alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of filling the complaint till its realization. Further , the Ops are  directed to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.

11.   This  order be complied with by OPs within 45 days  from the  receipt of copy  of this order.   

12.   The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

            Announced.      

            April 22, 2024

(Kanwaljeet Singh)             (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)    

    Member                                      President