Punjab

Sangrur

CC/596/2017

Amandeep Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC Housing Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Amit Jain

23 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                               

               

                                                Complaint No.    596

                                                Instituted on:      08.11.2017

                                                Decided on:       23.07.2018

 

 

 

 

1.     Amandeep Rao S/o Sh. Avinash Chander Rao,

2.     Anuradha Rao W/o Sh. Amandeep Rao, both Residents of House No. D-75, Street No.2, Block-D, Officer Colony, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainants

 

                                Versus

 

1.             LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Area Office SCO 2445-46, 1^st Floor, Sec. 22-C, Chandigarh through its Area Manager.

2.             LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Business Centre, SCO No.127, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala through its Branch Manager.

3.             Sahib & Sahib Financial Services, Sangrur through owner Sh. Sanjiv Kansal, Kaula Park, Sangrur.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

 

 

For the complainant    :               Shri Amit Jain, Adv.

For OP No.1&2         :               Shri Mohinder Ahuja, Adv.

For OP NO.3             :               Shri Amit Aggarwal, Adv.

 

 

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

               

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Amandeep Rao and Smt. Anuradha Rao, complainants (referred to as complainant in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 10.8.2004, the complainants took a house loan of Rs.10 Lacs @ 7.5 % interest per annum and the EMI was Rs.9270/- for the term of 15 years on floating rate basis.  Further case of the complainant is that the EMI was increased from Rs.9270/- to Rs.9557/- and thereafter to Rs.9887/- without any notice to the complainant, which is said to be illegal one.  Further case of the complainant is that in the year 2013, as per the guidelines/instructions of Govt. of India and RBI, regarding rate of interest on housing loan accounts including the loan in question, OPs did not revise the rate of interest and as such the complainant on 1.7.2017 approached the OP number 2 and on the asking of the OP number 2 the complainant gave a cheque of Rs.1150/- on account of fee etc, which is also said to be wrong and illegal.  Though the complainant requested the OPs for refund of the excess amount so recovered, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to adjust the excess interest so charged from the complainant and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OP number 1 and 2, it is admitted that the OP number 1 gave a loan offer letter for sanction of Rs.10.00 Lacs on 20.8.2004 at the rate of interest at 7.50% per annum, but in the letter it was specifically mentioned that “with reference to your application for housing loan, we offer to advance loan, subject to the terms and conditions annexed herewith which shall form part and parcel of this loan offer letter”.  It is further admitted that the instalments of the loan was increased from Rs.9270/- to Rs.9557/- and further to Rs.9887/- per month as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.  It is admitted that the complainant filed a written request to the OPs to revise the rate of interest and a cheque of Rs.1150/- was also submitted by the complainant, which is said to be submitted by the complainant, which is legal one.  It is stated that the loan instalment has been charged legally and there is nothing illegal.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 3, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and that OP number 2 has wrongly been arrayed as a party.  On merits,  the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 to Ex.OP1&2/10 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/2 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             At the outset, it is not in dispute between the parties that the complainant had obtained a house loan of Rs.10 Lacs on 20.8.2004 which was returnable in 15 years in the instalments.  It is also admitted that the instalment of the loan was revised from time to time as the interest rate was on floating rate basis, which fact is also admitted and has been averred in the complaint himself.  It is made clear that where floating rate of interest is applicable, the amount of instalment goes up and down as in the present case.  Now, we have perused the relief part of the complainant, where he has sought that the excess interest so charged from the complainant be adjusted and compensation be paid, but we failed to understand that why the complainant did not clearly mention the amount of excess amount, if any.  There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not mention the excess amount recovered from the complainant.  It is further worth mentioning here that the loan account is still in running position and has not over by now.   On the other hand, it is clearly mentioned in the written reply that the amount of the loan instalment has been increased in view of the terms and conditions  of the loan agreement as the rate of interest was on ‘floater basis’ and not on ‘fixed basis’.  Further to support this contention that the interest rate is floater basis is evident from the copy of the loan offer letter Ex.OP1&2/2.  In the circumstances, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops in increasing the amount of instalment from time to time. 

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant also filed an application on 11.6.2018 for production of complete record regarding the charging of rate of interest on loan account in question from the date of its commencement and rate of interest/instructions of the RBI to revise the said rate of interest from time to time and further to lead additional evidence.   In reply to the application, the learned counsel for the OPs number 1 and 2 has stated that earlier the complainant filed an application directing the OPs number 1 and 2 to produce the loan offer letter dated 20.8.2004, upto date on account statement qua the loan in question to facilitate the complainants to lead in this case and the Ops placed on record the entire documents which were mentioned by the complainants in their application dated 16.2.2018 and thereafter the complainants closed evidence on 26.3.2018, so it is stated that there is no need to produce documents which are mentioned in the head note of the application by the complainant. 

 

 

8.             We have perused the application and reply thereto and find that since the record sought by the complainant has already been produced by the Ops on the case file in view of his earlier application and the same has been produced on record.  Further since it is already held that the rate of interest was on floater basis and not on fixed basis, as such, it is clear that the rate of interest goes and up as per the market rates announced by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time.  As such, we find that the present application carries no water and the same is accordingly dismissed.

 

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and as such, the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. 

 

 

10.             A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                                July 23, 2018.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

 

                                                   (Sarita Garg)

                                                        Member