IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 243/08 DATED 24-10-2008<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Sri S. Santhosh Kumar, s/o late Capt. N. Sethu Madhavan Nair, Deputy Manager, Qtr. No.3-46,<br /> BRBNMPL Township, Note Mudran Nagar, Mysore-570003.<br /> (By Sri.S. Anuradha, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party 1. The General Manager M/s Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. (HDFC Ltd.) Home Loan Division, HDFC House, No.51, Kasturba Road, Bangalore-560001.<br /> 2. Officer In-charge, M/s Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. (HDFC Ltd.) No.9/2, Silver Towers, Ashoka Road, Mysore-570001.<br /> (By Sri.H.G.S., Advocate)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 14-08-2008<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 02-9-2008<br /> Date of order : 24-10-2008 <br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 month 22days<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has come up with this complaint against the opposite party with his grievance that he is working as a Deputy Manager in Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran Ltd., herein after referred, to as BRBNML for the sake of brevity and that the first opposite party approached the BRBNML vide letter dated 29-01-03 offering preferential terms and conditions for housing loan to the employees of BRBNML. A meeting was organized with the top officials of the first opposite party and the BRBNML to understand the preferences and offers extended by the first opposite party to the employees of BRBNML. Consequent to that the first opposite party, addressed a letter to them on 12-06-2006 stating that as a special case the rate of interest for housing loan would be about 8.50% under the adjustment rate home loan scheme floating rate on a monthly rest for a term 20 years. Further the first opposite party addressed a letter to BRBNML stating that they would extended the facility of capping of loan interest up to a maximum of 10% p.a. in view the excellent on-going relationship and in anticipation of future business of all centers of BRBNML. That he is one of the employees availed loan from first opposite party but the first opposite party as against the offer made for capping up the interest rate at 10% p.a. has now changed interest rate at 11.25% and despite he addressing a letter to first opposite party that it cannot charge interest more than 10% they have not yielded to his requested. Therefore contending that the first opposite party has indulged in un-fair trade practice has prayed for a direction to the opposite party to adhere to the commitment of providing capping facility on interest rate up to a maximum of 10% with retrospective effect from the time it has exceeded 10% and not to exceed 10% and for awarding compensation and cost for the complaint. <br /> 2. Opposite parties have appeared through their counsel and filed common version and have contended that the complaint has not maintainable and this form has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint <br /> on the ground that there exists no relationship of consumer and service providers. It is further contended by them that no offer was made to the complainant to cap up interest rate at 10% and what was given to the complainant was only a letter of offer. They have further stated that the BRBNML since did not give business as anticipated and stated that the only 8% of the employees of the bank have taken loans, therefore the said letter is not binding on them. It is further stated that the offer letter and loan agreement executed by the complainant with them do not admittedly refer to capped interest rate. The complainant after having signed the loan agreement in the year 2003 which do not speak about capping up of interest and opted for floating rate of interest cannot ask for reduction of the interest rate. Letters were given to the BRBNML offering loan at 10% interest subject to the BRBNML getting them more business. The terms of the contract the rate of interest are all governed by the terms of the loan agreement which spells out the interest rate, and have stated that the complaint when opted for floating rate of interest the bank after considering the viability has increased the rate of interest as per the terms of the contract and therefore stating that the complaint has no merits has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3. In the course of enquiry in to the grievance of the complainant, the complainant and on behalf of the opposite party one Naveen Prasad have filed their affidavit evidence reasserting what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced copies of letters addressed by the opposite parties to BRBNML, copy of the loan application and copy of the loan agreement. The opposite party has also produced a copy of the loan agreement. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> 4. On the above contentions following points arise for my consideration.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the opposite party agreed to cap up the interest rate at 10% p.a. but they by enhancing the rate of interest more than 10% have indulged in unfair trade practice?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1:- There is no dispute with regard to certain meetings held between the officers of BRBNML and the opposite parties regarding sanctioning of home loan to the employees of BRBNML on a confessional rate of interest. But the question is whether there was concluded contract that t in which the opposite parties had agreed to cap up the interest rate at 10%. The complainant has claimed that, he is one of the employees of BRBNML availed home loan from the opposite parties but the opposite parties instead of sticking to the capped up interest at 10% p.a. have enhanced the rate of interest to more than 11% and therefore contended that the opposite party has indulged in unfair and therefore has prayed for the relief as sought for. Whereas the opposite parties have opposed the contention of the complainant by further contending that, there was no contract between them and the BRBNML for offering loans at capped up interest rate at 10% p.a. and stated that, what they had given to BRBNML was only a letter offering home loans with interest at 10% p.a. as a conditional concession not offer but it was not accepted and confirmed by the complaint. It is further stated that, when themselves and complainant entered into a contract the complainant has executed a loan application farm agreeing to pay interest between 7% to 8% p.a. and revised rate of interest by opting to floating rate of interest. The opposite parties have also contended that, the loan agreement executed by the complainant also reveal that the interest rate fixed while granting loan to the complainant was subjected to revision or variation at the instance of the opposite party with this controversy in the matter we shall now refer to the materials placed before us to find out whether there had been a concluded contract or agreement between the parties which bind them for the capped up interest at 10% p.a.<br /> 7. The complainant in support of his contention, that the opposite party has agreed to sanction loan with interest rate capped up at a upper limit of 10% p.a. has relied upon a letter of the opposite party dated 12-6-2003, 19-06-2003 and another letter dated 29-01-03. No doubt in these letters there is a reference with regard to the rate of interest chargeable on home to be sanctioned to the employees of BRBNML including the complainant offering upper limit at 10% p.a. It is further stated in this letter that offer was made as a special case in anticipation of more business from BRBNML. The opponents have admitted to had given these letters to BRBNML but have contended that those letters were only an offer made to BRBNML and that offer was given in anticipation of more employees applying for loan and further in the letter dated 25-11-07 the opposite party has made it clear that offer was a very special case and it will be continued only if HDFC continued to get future business support and all the employees of BRBNML availing housing loan from them. As contended by the opposite parties, it is evident that, this offer was not accepted by the BRBNML and entered into any agreement or any contract. The opposite parties thus categorically stated to had offered to fix the upper limit of interest at 10% p.a. provided the BRBNML give more business to them. Therefore it is evident that the terms were neither accepted by the BRBNML nor confirmed to bind the opposite parties to cap up the interest rate at 10% p.a.<br /> 8. As could be seen, as against this offer made by the opponents through the letters referred above when the complainant gave loan application to the opposite parties agreed to pay interest at Rs.8.75% p.a. and on a variable rate basis and in this proposal form it is categorically stated the rate of interest was fixed subjected to the variation of interest not in terms of loan agreement to be executed. Thereafter in pursuance of this loan application the complainant has entered into the loan agreement with opposite parties and in clause 2.6(F) the complainant has agreed to the liberty of opposite parties to vary the interest rate from time to time in such manner including as to loan amount as HDFC may deem fit it in its discretion . The complainant being a party to these documents and signed to those documents agreeing to the terms with the floating rate of interest with liberty to the opponent to revise the rate of interest in its discretion. The complainant has not denied being a consented party to the loan proposal forms and the agreement executed in favour of opposite parties. Thus on perusal of the evidence of the opposite parties and the material documents like the loan proposal form and the loan agreement executed by the complainant themselves prove that the complainant had agreed to pay interest on the home loan at variable rate by opting to floating rate of interest. When this concluded contract was entered into between the complainant and opposite parties the complainant cannot now show his finger to some of the letters that the opposite party had addressed to BRBNML and say that the opposite party had agreed to cap up the interest rate at 10% p.a. and he is not bound by it. It could be further seen by the documents produced from the opposite parties that the complainant, after entering into a contract of obtaining loan and opted for floating rate of interest was given the benefit of reduced rate of interest when interest rate went downward. Hence complaint subject to being a party to the floating rate of interest and accepted variation in the rate of interest cannot now raise his anger against opposite parties in having enhanced rate of interest to 11% plus Even than the complainant has not produced before us any document or evidence to prove there had been a conclude contract between him and the opposite parties for paying interest up to the maximum limit of 10% p.a. It is well settled that the courts while dealing with the controversy arising out of an agreement or a contract it has to look to the terms to the contract and give effect to intention of the parties and to the meaning that emerge from the wordings of the contract. In the case on hand we find that the complainant was a party to the <br /> contract of paying floating rate of interest and that he has not proved capping up of interest and therefore we cannot hold that the opposite parties have indulged in any unfair trade practice as a result the complaint is liable to be dismissed by answering the point No.1 in the negative and hence pass the following order. <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to both the parties according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 24th October 2008)<br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />