Date of Filing:17.04.2009<br /> Date of Order:14.08.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 884 OF 2009<br /> <br /> S. Somaraj<br /> S/o. H. Siddegowda<br /> No. FA-81, HAL Quarters<br /> Behind HAL Hospital<br /> 2nd Main Road, Vimanapura Post<br /> Bangalore 560 017 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> The Manager<br /> GIC Housing Finance Ltd.<br /> LEO Shopping Complex<br /> 3rd Floor, # 44 & 45<br /> Residency Road Cross<br /> Bangalore 560 025 Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.<br /> The facts of the case are that the complainant has taken housing loan of Rs. 1,60,000/- from opposite party under loan sanction letter dated 17.02.2004. As per the sanction letter rate of interest is 8% p.a. The complainant submitted that the opposite party is collecting 11.75% p.a. interest. Complainant is paying EMI regularly. The opposite party is collecting flexible rate of interest. Since the full loan amount has not been released, complainant requested that opposite party be directed to collect interest at 8% p.a. only and direct opposite party to adjust the extra interest paid on the loan amount.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party through RPAD. Opposite party appeared through advocate and filed defence version stating that opposite party is entitled to collect flexible rate of interest depending upon the prevailing market conditions whether it is pre-EMI period or post-EMI period. Claim of the complainant is not based on legal principles. Complainant having opted for the flexible rate of interest and having paid the pre-EMI up to date as per the revised rates, therefore, complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.<br /> 3. Arguments are heard.<br /> 4. The point for consideration is:<br /> Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?<br /> 5. The opposite party has produced loan offer letter dated 10.02.2004. On the top of the letter it is clearly mentioned loan is subjected to “flexible rate of interest”. The loan amount sanctioned is Rs. 3,80,000/-. Loan repayment period is 180 months. Rate of interest is shown as 8% p.a. So as per the sanction letter of loan it is very clear that loan was sanctioned to the complainant on flexible rate of interest. No doubt at the time of sanction of loan rate of interest was 8% and accordingly, the interest was collected at 8% p.a. for about 2 years and thereafter, the opposite party has collected interest on higher rate from the complainant, since, the rate of interest are subjected to change depending upon the prevailing market conditions and guidelines of RBI. Flexible rate of interest means the interest will go on changing from time to time. It may enhance or it may reduce. Therefore, the complainant having opted for the flexible rate of interest he cannot now seek any direction from this fora that opposite party may be directed to collect interest at the rate of 8% p.a. This kind of direction cannot be issued to the opposite party because it will be against the terms and conditions agreed at the time of sanction of loan. The learned advocate for the complainant confused himself in reading clause (e) of the loan offer letter and having confused, he submitted that the opposite party should be directed to collect interest at 8% p.a. only till the final disbursement of the loan amount. This interpretation is not correct because the rate of interest is no doubt is mentioned at 8% p.a. and even for the pre-EMI rate of interest also mentioned as 8% p.a. Since, the loan offered or granted was on the basis of flexible rate of interest the opposite party company is entitled to charge interest as per the guidelines of RBI or market conditions. Therefore, there is absolutely no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Therefore, complaint is not maintainable. It deserves to be dismissed. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is dismissed.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER