NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2447/2010

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD. & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJENDER AJMERA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. VINOD TRISAL

13 Aug 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2447 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 26/05/2010 in Appeal No. 969/2009 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
1. LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD. & ANR.Regd. And Corporate Office at Bombay Life Building, Second Floor, 45/47, Nariman Marg FortMumbai-400001Maharashtra2. LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD.,Branch Office at Ranadey Marg, Alwar GateAjmerRajasthan ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. RAJENDER AJMERA & ANR.R/o.7-A-28, R.C. Vyas Colony, BheelwadaBheelwadaRajasthan2. SMT.RAJU W/O. SH. RAJENDER AJMERAR/o. 7-A-28, R.C. Vyas ColonyBheelwadaRajasthan ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :MR. VINOD TRISAL
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 13 Aug 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. The complaint filed by the Complainant was dismissed by the Consumer Forum but the State Commission had allowed the complaint. The State Commission in its order has stated that though in the Agreement the interest mentioned was floating rate of interest, yet thereafter letter was sent by the Complainant on 25.3.2004 that the interest to be charged was fixed rate of interest. The Bank did not give any reply to the said letter. The State Commission has also noticed that the interest was mentioned to be charged at fixed rate interest in letter dated 15.5.2004. Thereafter the charging of interest on fixed rate interest of 7.5% per annum was also mentioned in letter given on 30.5.2004 and 28.9.2004. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that in fact no such letters were sent, but in the computer generated statements dated 15.5.2004, 30.5.2004 and 28.9.2004 interest was shown as fixed rate of interest, yet the Bank had charged the floating rate of interest. The State Commission disbelieved the explanation given by the Petitioner in this respect that the letters (statement as per contention of counsel for the Petitioner) had been inadvertently issued mentioning the fixed rate of interest. It was held that in facts and circumstances the floating rate mentioned in agreement stood changed into fixed rate. Keeping in view the above mentioned circumstances, the State Commission had accepted the case of the complainant and we do not find that, in the facts and circumstances, any case has been made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................VINAY KUMARMEMBER