BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT TIRUPATI.FA No.1347/2007 against CC.SR.No.885-A dt.22.06.2006 District Consumer Forum,Anantapur.
Between:
1.B.Mallikarjuna, S/o.late B.Basava Raju,
Aged 42 years, Occ: Employee.
2.B.Sreedevi, W/o.B.Mallikarjuna,
Aged 38 years, Occ: Employee.
Both are r/o.D.No.4-7-112, Basava Nilayam,
Srinivasanagar, Hindupur, Anantapur District.
…Appellants/Complainants.
And
1.The Manager, LIC Housing Finance Limited,
Back Office: 304 and 305, 3rd Floor,
Maitrivanam, HUDA complex,Ameerpet,
Hyderabad – 500 038.
2.The Area Manager, Area Office, D.No.11-770-A,
2nd Floor, Meda Ramaiah Mansion, Subash Road,
Anantapur District – 515 001.
…Respondents/Opp.Parties.
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr.M. R.Tharakanama.
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.S.Siva Shanker.
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, HON’BLE PRESIDENT,
AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA,HON’BLE LADY MEMBER.
MONDAY, THE NINTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY,
TWO THOUSAND NINE.
Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.Appa Rao, President)
*******
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. None appeared for the respondents.
2. Aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Forum, Anantapur dt.06.10.2006 in dismissing the complaint, the complainants preferred this appeal.
3. The case of the complainants in brief is that they availed house loan of Rs.7,00,000/- under Gruha Prakash Scheme for construction of house at Hindupur repayable in 204 monthly instalments at 8% fixed rate of interest per annum. Contrarily, they sanctioned loan alleging that it was a floating rate of interest. Since the terms of loan were changed unilaterally, the complaint was filed seeking a direction against the respondents to collect the loan amount at fixed rate of interest, besides damages.
4. The District Forum rejected the complaint holding that the dispute would not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act and it was the Civil Court that had jurisdiction.
5. Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainants preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not invoke the jurisdiction. It is a consumer dispute, in the sense that terms and conditions were changed without their consent.
6. In the loan offer letter enclosed along with complaint under the conditions of loan offer at clause 2 rate of interest (payable monthly) interest charged on it was mentioned as 8% p.a. sub. to cl.4(a) & 4(b) – fixed rate. However, when the bank claimed interest more than what was stipulated under the loan offer letter, the complainants had protested by issuing notice for which the respondents Housing Finance stated that “ the said loan offer letter dated 30-7-2004 under fixed rate of interest inadvertently issued and opposite parties expressed sorry for the inconvenience caused to the complainants.”
7. Undoubtedly, when the very respondents Housing Finance admits its mistake the question is whether it was accidental or deliberate?.
8. If really the loan offer letter shows that loan was sanctioned under floating rate of interest it could not have been followed without the consent of the complainants by alleging that it was on floating rate of interest. Whether it would contribute to deficiency of service would be the question. After looking into this aspect the complaint could not have been rejected at the stage of admission without considering the very crucial aspect made by the respondents. The order under the appeal is unjust and liable to be set aside.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside. The District Forum is directed to register the complaint, issue notice to the respondents and proceed further according to law. Since the complaint is of the year 2006, the District Forum is directed to dispose of the matter within two months from the date of receipt of this order. However, in the circumstances, no costs.
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
Dt:19.01.2009.
