PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2007 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 666 of 2007, the OP Bank has filed this revision petition. The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by the OP Bank against the order dated 30.04.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central), Delhi (for short the District Forum) in Complaint No. 510 of 2005, vide which the District Forum had allowed the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants and directed the OP Bank to credit their account with the amount debited on account of charging higher rate of interest and to charge only 7.25% interest per annum on the loan till the entire amount was paid and further restricted the EMIs to remain at 144 as originally agreed, as against the arbitrary increase to 150 EMIs. In addition, the OP Bank was also directed to pay Rs.4000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service and Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation. The State Commission did not find any merit in the appeal filed by the OP Bank and accordingly dismissed the same. Hence, this revision petition by the OP Bank. 2. The facts, as per the respondents/complainants, are that they had availed a Home Loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the OP Bank at 7.25% rate of interest. They were supposed to repay this loan in 144 EMIs of Rs.5209/- commencing from 10.11.2004. They were paying the EMIs regularly but no statement was being furnished to them. When complainant no.2 approached the OP Bank in this regard, a computerized statement dated 23.04.2005 was furnished. It was noticed that the OP Bank had increased the number of EMIs from 144 to 150 and the rate of interest from 7.25% to 7.75%, resulting in an additional burden of Rs.31,254/-. The complainants issued a legal notice to the OP Bank against this arbitrary, illegal and uncalled for increase in the rate of interest charged from them but all in vain. Accordingly, the respondents filed a complaint before the District Forum, who allowed the complaint in the manner indicated above. 3. We have heard Mr. Sangram Patnaik, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner/OP Bank and Ms. Bhavna Aggarwal, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/complainants, and have considered their submissions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank has advanced the same pleas set up in his submissions before the State Commission and has contended that the housing loan was sanctioned to the respondents/complainants with floating rate of interest and has explained that the specified 7.25% interest rate was as per the prevalent rate of interest on the date of issuance of the letter. According to him, the sanction was subject to floating rate of interest, under which the rate of interest does not get frozen during the tenure of home loan and is bound to fluctuate/vary/change from time to time. In the second limb of his arguments, he has contended that even though it was not obligatory on the part of the petitioner/Bank to inform the loanee/complainants with regard to the increase in the rate of interest based on the prevalent market condition; the petitioner/Bank had informed the loanee/complainants vide letter dated 14th of February, 2005. The State Commission, therefore, has erred in holding that the principle of natural justice has not been adhered to. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/complainants has submitted that the State Commission has considered these aspects in great detail in its order, which is fully justified and needs no interference. 6. Having perused the records of the case and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that needs consideration is as to whether the home loan was indeed sanctioned under a floating rate of interest or it was fixed at 7.25% per annum. At page 29 of the paper-book under the heading ‘Schedule to Home Loan Agreement’, against the column ‘Interest’, the interest rate is indicated as 7.25% per annum with default interest rate at 24% per annum. There is no mention or reference to the interest rate being floating or fluctuating. However, the petitioner/Bank relying upon the clauses 5.6 and 5.7.1 claims that the stated rate of interest of 7.25% was not a fixed rate of interest but was the interest applicable at that relevant point of time only. The State Commission has dealt with this aspect in detail and it would be relevant to extract its opinion, which is as follows :- “6. We have perused the Home Loan Agreement closely which runs into several pages and on every page there is asterisk mark advising the consumer to put his or her signatures on that point. The terms are printed in such a micro print that even highly educated person having adequate knowledge of English cannot read the contents conveniently nor can make out the contents and it appears that the signatures were obtained without reading the terms of the contract or explaining the terms. 7. Even if we go to the extent that the contract in question was a written contract signed by both the parties still the fact remains that the discretion in case of increasing the rate of interest on its own was not unbridled or applicable unilaterally. Such a discretion was exercisable having regard to the applicable regulations and conditions in money market and in accordance with the national policies of regulatory requirements. In our view the concept of floating rate of interest flows from the regulation of rate of interest by the RBI guidelines and not arbitrarily by the service provider without informing or telling the reasons for increasing the rate of interest in general terms and not that there is inflationary market. Every discretion has to be exercised judicially so as to make persons understand fully as to the reasons and ground for increasing the rate of interest and not arbitrarily under the garb of floating rate of interest. In the instant case no such reason was advanced by the appellant. 8. We do not find any merits in the appeal and dismiss the same.” We are in total agreement with the view taken by the State Commission on this. 7. On the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/Bank that the respondents/complainants were duly informed vide letter dated 14th of February, 2005 about the change/increase in the rate of interest, both the fora below have dealt with this aspect as well. The District Forum has stated “There is nothing on the record to show that the complainants have ever agreed to the increase in the rate of interest, nor there is any letter of the O.P. addressed to the complainant intimating the increase in the rate of interest”. It is, therefore, clear that the so called letter dated 14th of February, 2005 was never produced before the District Forum. It appears that it was an afterthought to produce the same before the State Commission. Thus, the plea of the learned counsel for petitioner/Bank on both the counts fail. 8. It may be stated that this Commission has a very limited jurisdiction in the matter of deciding revision petitions and this being a case of concurrent finding and order and there being neither any jurisdictional error nor any miscarriage of justice, we cannot but dismiss the revision petition. In this regard, we may profitably refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [II (2010) CPJ 19 (SC)], wherein the Apex Court has held as under :- “23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora” . 9. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. | 
