DATE OF FILING : 11-04-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 29-05-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 06-05-2014.
Nupur Das Mitra,
wife of Sri Tarun Kumar Mitra,
residing at ‘Bhoorai’, flat no. 2A, 23/2, P.K. Roy Chowdhury 2nd Bye Lane,
Koley Market, Botanical Garden, P.S. Shibpur,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711103..------------------------------------------------------------------ COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. The Manager Housing Development,
Finance Corporation Ltd.,
Situated a Merlin Estate, 25/8, Dimond Harbar Road,
Kolkata – 700008.
2. The Manager HDFC Ltd.,
Situated at Jeevandeep, 3rd Floor,
1, Middleton Street,
Kolkata – 700071.
3. The Manager HDFC Ltd.,
situated at Raman House H.T. Parekh Bag 169,
Bach Bay Recsamation Church Gate,
Mumbai – 400020. ------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The instant case was filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.Ps. for one time settlement of outstanding EMIs and a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/- along with other reliefs against home loan amounting to Rs. 4 lakhs to the complainant in spite of paying EMIs of total amount of Rs. 3,45,386/- upto March,2013 as per agreement dated 17-08-2005 @ Rs. 3,823/- against 180 installments, arbitrarily enhanced EMIs of Rs. 5,006/- per month to be paid as EMIs as usual for the remaining.
2. The o.ps. i.e., financial institution in their written version denied any arbitrary excessive EMI charged in the account of the complainant. These answering o.ps. further opined that the complainant availed of the home loan on a floating rate of interest as per agreement and due to increase of the rates of interest and subsequent increase in RPLR, the complainant’s loan account went into the negative amortization as payments made by the complainant were not sufficient to meet the interest obligation as per the agreement, for which the complainant is liable to make further payment of a sum of Rs. 4,37,327/- as on 30-11-2013 to close the home loan account, in spite of the facts that the complainant already paid Rs. 3,47,893/- towards EMIs which include principal amount of Rs. 89,628/- and interest component of Rs. 2,58,265/-.
3. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. This is a case where the complainant took a home loan of Rs. 4 lakhs at floating rate interest of EMIs @ Rs. 3,823/- per month payable in 180 installments as per agreement dated 17-08-2005.
5. The point of dispute is that the complainant paid the EMIs @ Rs. 3,823/- upto August,2008. Suddenly from Sep’08 the o.p. no. 1 in an arbitrary manner increased the monthly installment from Rs. 3,823/- to Rs. 5,006/- per month and as such the complainant had to bear extra expenses regarding excess EMIs charged causing mental stress and agony.
6. It is to be borne in mind that the complainant had availed of the loan on a variable rate of interest. Due to increase in the rates of interest and subsequent increase in RPLR, her loan account went into Negative Amortization as payments made by her were not sufficient to meet the interest obligations as per agreement. Most unfortunate aspect is that such change in the rate of interest was explained to the complainant. But she was reluctant to pay any heed and continued her defaults.
7. One cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. By sleeping over her right to scrutinize the terms of floating rate of interest at the time of agreement, the complainant cannot wriggle out of his own misfortune, nor can she seek protection from this Forum as we trace no deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. The o.p. Bank’s function is regulated by the Rules of RBI. They cannot afford to be arbitrary. But while keeping pace with the rate variations of the RBI, the interest rate of the concerned bank is increased. The interest cannot remain static like solid rock to oblige the borrowers.
8. We are, therefore, of the views that we trace no deficiency in service provided by the o.p. Bank. We have no hesitation in our mind that the instant complaint has its genesis from entering wrong perception. It is, therefore, a fit case for dismissal.
Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 105 of 2013 ( HDF 105 of 2013 ) be and the same is dismissed on contest as against the o.ps.
No order as to costs.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( P. K. Chatterjee )
Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
