Orissa

Cuttak

CC/117/2019

Sambhu Nath Goenka - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC Housing Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

M Agrawal

16 Jan 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.117/19

 

Sri Sambhu Nath Goenka,

Res. of Plot No.1398-B,Sector-6,Markat Nagar,

Cuttack-753014                                  .                             ... Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

           L.I.C Housing Finance Limited,

           Represented through its Area Manager,

           At:IPICOL HOUSe,3^rd Floor,Janpath,

           Bhubaneswar-22.                                                               ... Opp. Party.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     25.09.2019

Date of Order:    16.01.2023

 

For the complainant:          Mr. Mohit Agarwal,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P.                 :        Mr. U.K.Mishra,Advocate.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

The case of the complainant in short is that he availed a housing loan from the O.P vide Loan A/c. no.015006105 on 21.11.2007 for a term of 11 years, wherein the rate of interest was @ 10.50% with interest type ‘floating’.  It is stated by the complainant that after the year 2008, the rate of interest reduced by the RBI but the O.P did not reduce the rate of interest in respect of the loan of the complainant.  The further case of the complainant is that the O.P in their advertisement for fresh loan has fixed the rate of interest @ 8.50 % per annum but he is charging interest @ 11%  to him.  The complainant wrote several letters to O.Ps to provide break up of month-wise rate of interest applicable on his loan account from the year 2007 till date but no response received from his side.  Hence the complainant on 6.11.18 had sent a legal notice to provide him the break up month-wise rate of interest applied to his loan account.  It is alleged by the complainant that the O.P replied to the legal notice vide his letter dt.7.6.19 but did not disclose the rate of interest as applied to the monthly E.M.I to his loan account. In the send letter also the O.P replied that he has charged floating rate of interest as per the loan contract but did not disclose the rate of interest charged to the complainant.  As the O.P did not provide the information as sought by the complainant, the complainant has filed the present case with a prayer for a direction to the O.P to intimate the complainant month-wise floating rate of interest charged on his loan account, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as well as a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of his litigation.

          The complainant has filed certain documents in order to prove his case.

2.       This Commission vide its order dt.17.2.21 had allowed the case of the complainant exparte against the O.P.  Being aggrieved by such order, the O.P had approached the Hon’ble State C.D.R.Commission,Cuttack by filing F.A.No.133/2022.  The Hon’ble State C.D.R.Commission has remanded the case to this Commission  for fresh disposal, subject to payment of cost of Rs.15,000/- by the O.P to the complainant before this Commission.  The O.P has paid the cost to the complainant as awarded by the Hon’ble State Commission and has filed a “Memo” to that effect, wherein the counsel for the complainant has endorsed the same by receiving the cheque amounting to Rs.15,000/-. 

3.       The O.P has filed his written version stating therein that the complainant had availed a housing loan bearing A/c. No.11015006105 on 21.11.2007 @ 10.50% interest for a term of 11 years with “floating interest” for Rs.19,25,000/-. It is also stated by him that the O.P is a non-banking financial institution governed by the guidelines of the R..B.I issued from time to time.  So also it is stated by him that as per the loan agreement, the rate of interest stipulated in the schedule is reviewed in every quarter i.e. January,April,July and October basing upon the prevailing market conditions as judged by LICHFL.

As regards to the rate of interest advertised by the O.P for fresh loan as alleged by the complainant, it is stated by him that it depend upon various factors such as the type of Loan,CIBIL Score and purpose.  It is stated by him that as the complainant defaulted in payment of the loan dues, his account has been declared as NPA since 10.1.18.  It is also stated by him that the complainant is a chronic defaulter in repayment of loan dues and when the repayment was demanded by the O.P, the complainant has filed such a vexatious case alleging deficiency in service against him.  It is averred by the O.P that on 17.6.19,hehad sent a registered letter giving therein the details about the charging rate of interest for the entire period, and the allegation of the complainant in this regard is baseless.  It is alleged by the O.P that when he demanded the outstanding loan dues, the complainant has filed the present case with false allegation which deserves to be dismissed with cost.

The O.P has filed some documents to prove his case.

4.    Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of O.P no.1, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and if he has practised any unfair trade ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed

by him?

Issue No.ii.

Out of the three issues, Issue no.ii being the most pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

Admittedly, the complainant had availed housing loan bearing A/c. No.11015006105 on 21.11.2007 carrying interest @ 10.50%  for a term of 11 years with floating interest for Rs.19,25,000/- and an agreement has been executed to that effect between the parties.  The complainant’s main allegation is that the O.P has charged higher rate of interest which is beyond the RBI guidelines but he could not prove such allegation.  The complainant is bound by the Loan Agreement, but he could not substantiate his allegation to the effect that the O.P has charged higher rate of interest as agreed in the agreement.  The O.P in his written version has categorically stated that the rate of interest has been charged as per the R.B.I guidelines issued from time to time and as per the loan agreement, so also stated that the rate of interest in the schedule is reviewed in very quarter i.e. January,April,July and October.  The O.P has filed registered letter dt.17.6.2019, wherein he had replied to the complainant’s querry as regards to charging of rate of interest for the different period.  As the said letter has been issued by registered post in the correct address as given by the complainant, the same is deemed to have been received by the complainant.  Hence, the allegation of the complainant to the effect that inspite of his request, the O.P did not reply provide him the rate of the interest as charged by him in his Loan A/c is not believable. 

  Be that as it may, the complainant is a defaulter in repayment of the loan dues and his loan account has been declared as NPA since 10.1.2018.  Admittedly, the complainant has filed the case after declaration made by the O.P to his Loan A/c as NPA.  It is reiterated that the complainant is bound by the agreement entered into with the O.P.  Thus, breach of any terms and conditions of such agreement amounts to repudiation of such agreement.  Hence it is held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P nor the O.Phas practised any unfair trade.  Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the O.P.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

 

 

ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.P and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 16^th day of January,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.  

                                                                                                            

                                                                                                              Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member

 

                                                                                                                   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                             President