Heard learned counsel for the parties.

    2.            This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                 The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant had obtained housing loan from the OP on 21.11.2007 for a term of 11 years wherein the rate of interest was 10.50 % with type of interest as ‘floating’. It is alleged inter-alia that there was loan agreement executed between the parties. The complainant alleged that though the floating rate of interest has been increased to the tune of 20% to 25 %, 25 % to 30 % but the OP has not intimated regarding increase of interest  to pay the loan  with that percentage of interest. On the otherhand, the OP demanded the arrear amount with interest to pay. The complainant wrote many occasions to the OP to inform about the details of the floating interest and informed from time to time but failed to get same. So, legal notice was issued against the complainant. After receiving legal notice, the OP submitted the statement of account dtd.07.06.2019 containing floating rate of interest. Since, no intimation was given earlier, the complainant sustained mental agony for which the complaint was filed.

4.                The OP was set-exparte.

  5.              After hearing the matter set-exparte, learned District Forum   have passed the following order:-

                   xxxx                   xxxx                   xxxx

                            “The case of the complainant is allowed exparte against the OP. The OP is directed to intimate the month wise floating rate of interest charged on his loan account from time to time to the complainant and pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- within a period of 45 days from the date of this order.”

6.          Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that   no notice was received by them and they are set-exparte. There is already agreement executed between the parties to show that the complainant is liable to pay the floating rate of interest. In support of his submission he also supplied a letter sent to the complainant on 05.07.2019 about floating rate of interest raised from time to time since 30.04.2008. He also filed the necessary loan agreement and sanction order. Learned District Forum would have considered all documents if he had been given opportunity of being heard. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by remanding the matter to the learned District Commission to give the opportunity to the parties and dispose of the matter on merit.

 7.            Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Op knowingly did not appear before the learned District Forum in order to harass the complainant. According to him there is floating rate of interest charged on the complainant but he was not intimated from time to time about statement of account to show that he is liable to pay floating rate of interest. Since, the complainant has been harassed the learned District Forum has rightly disposed of the matter by passing the impugned order.

8.               Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, perused the DFR and impugned order.

9.             It is admitted fact that the complainant has borrowed money from the Op with an intention to pay back same with interest after rate of 8.5 per annum in the year 2008. It is not in dispute that the rate of interest hiked to 11 %. The documents filed by the Ops are to show that there is review of rate of interest from time to time since 30.04.2008 to 11.01.2019. These documents have been not filed before the learned District Forum due to absence of the OP before the learned District Forum. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that they have already sent the notice to the OP but the OP remained absent and all the provisions are well known because he is part and parcel of their organization. We are not concerned for the documents filed by them but no notice has been properly served on them.

10.          Therefore, without going to the merit of the case, we deem it proper to allow the appeal by remanding the matter to the learned District Commission   for fresh disposal of the case. Of course the complainant has been again dragged to the Commission for fresh disposal of the case. Therefore, the appeal is allowed by remanding the matter to the learned District Commission subject to payment of cost of Rs.15,000/- by the OP to the complainant before the learned District Commission. The learned District Commission would do well to allow the Op to file the written version and allow both the parties to adduce evidence and dispose of the matter within 60 days from the date of this order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned District Commission on 15.11.2022 to take further instruction.

                 The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.     

Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.  

                   DFR be sent back forthwith.