Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/33/2021

PNB Housing Finance Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ms. Saroj Verma - Opp.Party(s)

Amandeep Singh Talwar Adv.

28 Feb 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	33 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	05.04.2021
Date of Decision	:	28.02.2022

 

 

PNB Housing Finance Ltd., SCO No.323-324, First Floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Manager/Regional Manager/Branch Manager/Authorized Representative.

…..Appellant/Opposite Party.

VERSUS

 

Ms. Saroj Verma w/o Sh. Hari Pal Verma, Corresponding Address: House No.2181, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh.

…..Respondent/Complainant.

 

Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                MRS.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

ARGUED BY: (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING):

Sh. Amandeep Singh Talwar, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent.

 

RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER 

                    This appeal has been filed by the opposite party against order dated 10.02.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission’) vide which, consumer complaint No.490 of 2020 filed by the complainant (respondent herein) was partly allowed.

2.             Heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case and the written arguments very carefully.

3.                Bare perusal of the averments made in the complaint and the documents/annexures placed on record before the District Commission and before this Commission, in appeal, it is apparently clear that in complaint, the complainant averred that as per statement of account, the appellant/opposite party levied overdue charges in the loan account of the complainant from 31.08.2015 and the floating rate of interest  was increased to 14.35% on 01.05.2015; 14.60% on 01.05.2018; 14.80% on 01.11.2018; 14.87%; on 01.03.2019;  14.72% on 01.03.2020 and 14.57% on 21.05.2020 instead of agreed floating rate of interest @ 9.75% and consequently, the EMIs were increased against the agreed 156 months. The District Commission gave a finding that the increase in the rate of interest was huge. However, as per the appellant/opposite party, the rate of interest always remained around 11% even after the increase. In appeal, the appellant/opposite party has given a table, as per which, the applicable rate of interest to the loan was 9.75%  on 11.03.2011, 10% on 01.04.2011, 10.25% on 01.06.2011, 10.75% on 01.08.2011, 11% on 01.10.2013, 10.85% on 01.05.2015, 11.1% on 01.05.2018, 11.3% on 01.11.2018, 11.37% on 01.3.2019, 11.22% on 01.03.2020 and 11.07% on 21.05.2020 (as per Annexures C-5 & R-3 colly.). Rather the factual position on record is somewhat different. It was not the floating rate of interest, which was 14.35% on 01.05.2015; 14.60% on 01.05.2018; 14.80% on 01.11.2018; 14.87%; on 01.03.2019; 14.72% on 01.03.2020 and 14.57% on 21.05.2020, the said interest figures were of Bench Mark Floating Rate of Interest or to say PNBHFR to which interest rate was linked. Therefore, the District Commission while passing the impugned order did not appreciate the facts on record.

4.             Moreover, in appeal, to contend that revised rate was offered to the respondent/complainant, the appellant/opposite party placed on record copy of an email dated 05.08.2020, Annexure A-10, vide which, the appellant/opposite party offered to the respondent/complainant revised floating rate of 8.60% against current rate of 11.07% with NIL fee, so that, necessary changes w.e.f. 11.08.2020 could be made post confirmation from the respondent/complainant. This document is prior to the date of filing of the complaint before the District Commission and was never placed before it (District Commission) by either party. It is a relevant document, which needs to be considered for the just decision of the case as it shall have bearing on the merits of the case also.

5.                Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the case is remanded back to the District Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh for deciding it afresh after properly appreciating the facts, documents and after giving due opportunity of being heard to both the parties, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of order.

6.                The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh on 21.03.2022.

7.                Certified copy of this order alongwith the record be sent to the District Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh so as to reach there well before the date fixed.

8.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

9.      Certified copy of this order be also sent to the parties/Counsel through email/whatsapp.

10.   File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

28.02.2022

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad

 

 

S