BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.178/12.

Date of instt.: 08.06.2012. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 02.01.2015.

Inder Bansal son of Sh. Chiranji Lal, resident of H.No.203, Model Town, Jind Road, Kaithal, District Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Vijay Arora Agent/authorized representative of L.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd. having Office at Kurukshetra Road, Kaithal.

2. L.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Branch Office Karnal, at SCO No.144, Main Market, Sector 13, Karnal, District Karnal.

3. L.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd. through its Managing Director, office at Back Office Laxmi Insurance Building, Assaf Ali Road, New Delhi.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Ashok Gautam, Advocate for complainant.

                        Op No.1 already exparte.

Sh. Manoj Ichhpilani, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.2 & 3.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he borrowed three loans from the Ops.  It is alleged that the complainant deposited the instalments at Central Bank of India, Branch Kaithal in the account of LIC HFL Area Office, Karnal.  It is further alleged that the complainant was having three loan accounts bearing No.5287 for amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, second account number was 6967 for the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and the third one was having account No.8687 for amount of Rs.2,00,00/-.  It is further alleged that the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.10,528/- per month as collective instalment of all the three loans and the complainant never defaulted for the same.  It is further alleged that in the month of June, 2009 the Ops deposited Rs.2700/- less in account No.5287.  It is further alleged that the complainant cleared the accounts, then he was astonished to hear that the Ops said that he is clearing the accounts prior to time, so, he has to pay penalty for this.  It is further alleged that the Ops demanded Rs.17,637/- from the complainant for all the three loans and the complainant had to pay the same under undue influence and in order to get rid of the Ops.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.1 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 02.08.2012.  Ops No.2 and 3 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that the complainant availed three loans bearing loan account Nos.15005287, 15006967 and 15008687 to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.2,25,000/- respectively from the answering Ops, thereby signing over the loan agreements and accepted the terms and conditions of the loan agreements.  The borrower agreed that the availed loan facility shall be repayable by way of 180 equated monthly instalments of Rs.3776/- each for the loan account No.14015005287, 144 equated monthly instalments of Rs.3597/- each for the loan account No.14015006967 and 180 equated monthly instalments of Rs.2787/- each for the loan account No.14015008687.  The loans were under the scheme of floating rate of interest as opted by the complainant.  As per the clause 4(a)(iii) of loan agreement No.14015005287 and 14015006967, where the loan is under floating rate of interest, the interest stipulated in the schedule of the loan offer letter shall be reviewed after every six months based on the prevailing market conditions as judged by LICHFL.  The revised floating rate of interest would increase, decrease or remain the same; It was a condition in the sanction letter under Sr.No.10: fees on pre-payment: 2% on the amount of loan pre-paid; that according to the terms and conditions of the loan agreements, the pre-payment charges were taken from the borrower and since he had accepted the terms and conditions of the loan agreements became ready to pay the same and deposited the same with his free will and consent.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties. 

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant borrowed three loans from the Ops.  The complainant deposited the instalments at Central Bank of India, Branch Kaithal in the account of LIC HFL Area Office, Karnal.  The complainant was having three loan accounts bearing No.5287 for amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, second account number was 6967 for the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and the third one was having account No.8687 for amount of Rs.2,00,00/-.  The complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.10,528/- per month as collective instalment of all the three loans and the complainant never defaulted for the same.  In the month of June, 2009 the Ops deposited Rs.2700/- less in account No.5287.  The Ops also demanded Rs.17,637/- as penalty from the complainant for all the three loans.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 vehemently contends that as per the clause 4(a)(iii) of loan agreement No.14015005287 and 14015006967, where the loan is under floating rate of interest, the interest stipulated in the schedule of the loan offer letter shall be reviewed after every six months based on the prevailing market conditions as judged by LICHFL.  The revised floating rate of interest would increase, decrease or remain the same.  Similarly in loan account No.14015008687 under clause 2.2 of loan agreement “in the event of borrower of opts for the floating rate of interest offered by LICHFL, the rate of interest as stipulated in the schedule shall be based on the LIC Housing Prime Lending Rate (LHPLR) plus/mines the spread as prevailing at the time of sanction (subject to quarterly review) as fixed by LICHFL from time to time.  The revised floating rate of interest will be applicable w.e.f. Ist January, Ist April, Ist July or Ist October as the case may be”.  Along with other terms and conditions of loan agreement, inter-alia amongst other, it was also a condition under clause 2.8 prepayment of loan: LICHFL may, in its sole discretion and on such terms, as to pre-payment charges as mentioned in the Schedule hereto etc., prescribe/permit prepayment/acceleration in payment of Equated Montlhly Instalments (EMI) at the request of the borrower.  In the event, LICHFL permits any prepayment/acceleration, the repayment schedule for the loan may be amended/altered by LICHFL for giving effect to such prepayment/acceleration, and as such amended/altered repayment schedule shall be binding upon the borrower.  In the event of prepayment, the new repayment/amortization schedule shall be effective from the EMI date of the subsequent month.  We find modic-um of merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the Ops No.2 and 3.  So, we find that the Ops have rightly charged the amount from the complainant. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.02.01.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.178/12.

Date of instt.: 08.06.2012. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 02.01.2015.

Inder Bansal son of Sh. Chiranji Lal, resident of H.No.203, Model Town, Jind Road, Kaithal, District Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Vijay Arora Agent/authorized representative of L.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd. having Office at Kurukshetra Road, Kaithal.

2. L.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Branch Office Karnal, at SCO No.144, Main Market, Sector 13, Karnal, District Karnal.

3. L.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd. through its Managing Director, office at Back Office Laxmi Insurance Building, Assaf Ali Road, New Delhi.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Ashok Gautam, Advocate for complainant.

                        Op No.1 already exparte.

Sh. Manoj Ichhpilani, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.2 & 3.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he borrowed three loans from the Ops.  It is alleged that the complainant deposited the instalments at Central Bank of India, Branch Kaithal in the account of LIC HFL Area Office, Karnal.  It is further alleged that the complainant was having three loan accounts bearing No.5287 for amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, second account number was 6967 for the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and the third one was having account No.8687 for amount of Rs.2,00,00/-.  It is further alleged that the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.10,528/- per month as collective instalment of all the three loans and the complainant never defaulted for the same.  It is further alleged that in the month of June, 2009 the Ops deposited Rs.2700/- less in account No.5287.  It is further alleged that the complainant cleared the accounts, then he was astonished to hear that the Ops said that he is clearing the accounts prior to time, so, he has to pay penalty for this.  It is further alleged that the Ops demanded Rs.17,637/- from the complainant for all the three loans and the complainant had to pay the same under undue influence and in order to get rid of the Ops.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.1 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 02.08.2012.  Ops No.2 and 3 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that the complainant availed three loans bearing loan account Nos.15005287, 15006967 and 15008687 to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.2,25,000/- respectively from the answering Ops, thereby signing over the loan agreements and accepted the terms and conditions of the loan agreements.  The borrower agreed that the availed loan facility shall be repayable by way of 180 equated monthly instalments of Rs.3776/- each for the loan account No.14015005287, 144 equated monthly instalments of Rs.3597/- each for the loan account No.14015006967 and 180 equated monthly instalments of Rs.2787/- each for the loan account No.14015008687.  The loans were under the scheme of floating rate of interest as opted by the complainant.  As per the clause 4(a)(iii) of loan agreement No.14015005287 and 14015006967, where the loan is under floating rate of interest, the interest stipulated in the schedule of the loan offer letter shall be reviewed after every six months based on the prevailing market conditions as judged by LICHFL.  The revised floating rate of interest would increase, decrease or remain the same; It was a condition in the sanction letter under Sr.No.10: fees on pre-payment: 2% on the amount of loan pre-paid; that according to the terms and conditions of the loan agreements, the pre-payment charges were taken from the borrower and since he had accepted the terms and conditions of the loan agreements became ready to pay the same and deposited the same with his free will and consent.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties. 

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant borrowed three loans from the Ops.  The complainant deposited the instalments at Central Bank of India, Branch Kaithal in the account of LIC HFL Area Office, Karnal.  The complainant was having three loan accounts bearing No.5287 for amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, second account number was 6967 for the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and the third one was having account No.8687 for amount of Rs.2,00,00/-.  The complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.10,528/- per month as collective instalment of all the three loans and the complainant never defaulted for the same.  In the month of June, 2009 the Ops deposited Rs.2700/- less in account No.5287.  The Ops also demanded Rs.17,637/- as penalty from the complainant for all the three loans.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 vehemently contends that as per the clause 4(a)(iii) of loan agreement No.14015005287 and 14015006967, where the loan is under floating rate of interest, the interest stipulated in the schedule of the loan offer letter shall be reviewed after every six months based on the prevailing market conditions as judged by LICHFL.  The revised floating rate of interest would increase, decrease or remain the same.  Similarly in loan account No.14015008687 under clause 2.2 of loan agreement “in the event of borrower of opts for the floating rate of interest offered by LICHFL, the rate of interest as stipulated in the schedule shall be based on the LIC Housing Prime Lending Rate (LHPLR) plus/mines the spread as prevailing at the time of sanction (subject to quarterly review) as fixed by LICHFL from time to time.  The revised floating rate of interest will be applicable w.e.f. Ist January, Ist April, Ist July or Ist October as the case may be”.  Along with other terms and conditions of loan agreement, inter-alia amongst other, it was also a condition under clause 2.8 prepayment of loan: LICHFL may, in its sole discretion and on such terms, as to pre-payment charges as mentioned in the Schedule hereto etc., prescribe/permit prepayment/acceleration in payment of Equated Montlhly Instalments (EMI) at the request of the borrower.  In the event, LICHFL permits any prepayment/acceleration, the repayment schedule for the loan may be amended/altered by LICHFL for giving effect to such prepayment/acceleration, and as such amended/altered repayment schedule shall be binding upon the borrower.  In the event of prepayment, the new repayment/amortization schedule shall be effective from the EMI date of the subsequent month.  We find modic-um of merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the Ops No.2 and 3.  So, we find that the Ops have rightly charged the amount from the complainant. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.02.01.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.178/12.

Date of instt.: 08.06.2012. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 02.01.2015.

Inder Bansal son of Sh. Chiranji Lal, resident of H.No.203, Model Town, Jind Road, Kaithal, District Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Vijay Arora Agent/authorized representative of L.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd. having Office at Kurukshetra Road, Kaithal.

2. L.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Branch Office Karnal, at SCO No.144, Main Market, Sector 13, Karnal, District Karnal.

3. L.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd. through its Managing Director, office at Back Office Laxmi Insurance Building, Assaf Ali Road, New Delhi.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Ashok Gautam, Advocate for complainant.

                        Op No.1 already exparte.

Sh. Manoj Ichhpilani, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.2 & 3.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he borrowed three loans from the Ops.  It is alleged that the complainant deposited the instalments at Central Bank of India, Branch Kaithal in the account of LIC HFL Area Office, Karnal.  It is further alleged that the complainant was having three loan accounts bearing No.5287 for amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, second account number was 6967 for the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and the third one was having account No.8687 for amount of Rs.2,00,00/-.  It is further alleged that the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.10,528/- per month as collective instalment of all the three loans and the complainant never defaulted for the same.  It is further alleged that in the month of June, 2009 the Ops deposited Rs.2700/- less in account No.5287.  It is further alleged that the complainant cleared the accounts, then he was astonished to hear that the Ops said that he is clearing the accounts prior to time, so, he has to pay penalty for this.  It is further alleged that the Ops demanded Rs.17,637/- from the complainant for all the three loans and the complainant had to pay the same under undue influence and in order to get rid of the Ops.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.1 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 02.08.2012.  Ops No.2 and 3 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that the complainant availed three loans bearing loan account Nos.15005287, 15006967 and 15008687 to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.2,25,000/- respectively from the answering Ops, thereby signing over the loan agreements and accepted the terms and conditions of the loan agreements.  The borrower agreed that the availed loan facility shall be repayable by way of 180 equated monthly instalments of Rs.3776/- each for the loan account No.14015005287, 144 equated monthly instalments of Rs.3597/- each for the loan account No.14015006967 and 180 equated monthly instalments of Rs.2787/- each for the loan account No.14015008687.  The loans were under the scheme of floating rate of interest as opted by the complainant.  As per the clause 4(a)(iii) of loan agreement No.14015005287 and 14015006967, where the loan is under floating rate of interest, the interest stipulated in the schedule of the loan offer letter shall be reviewed after every six months based on the prevailing market conditions as judged by LICHFL.  The revised floating rate of interest would increase, decrease or remain the same; It was a condition in the sanction letter under Sr.No.10: fees on pre-payment: 2% on the amount of loan pre-paid; that according to the terms and conditions of the loan agreements, the pre-payment charges were taken from the borrower and since he had accepted the terms and conditions of the loan agreements became ready to pay the same and deposited the same with his free will and consent.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties. 

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant borrowed three loans from the Ops.  The complainant deposited the instalments at Central Bank of India, Branch Kaithal in the account of LIC HFL Area Office, Karnal.  The complainant was having three loan accounts bearing No.5287 for amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, second account number was 6967 for the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and the third one was having account No.8687 for amount of Rs.2,00,00/-.  The complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.10,528/- per month as collective instalment of all the three loans and the complainant never defaulted for the same.  In the month of June, 2009 the Ops deposited Rs.2700/- less in account No.5287.  The Ops also demanded Rs.17,637/- as penalty from the complainant for all the three loans.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 vehemently contends that as per the clause 4(a)(iii) of loan agreement No.14015005287 and 14015006967, where the loan is under floating rate of interest, the interest stipulated in the schedule of the loan offer letter shall be reviewed after every six months based on the prevailing market conditions as judged by LICHFL.  The revised floating rate of interest would increase, decrease or remain the same.  Similarly in loan account No.14015008687 under clause 2.2 of loan agreement “in the event of borrower of opts for the floating rate of interest offered by LICHFL, the rate of interest as stipulated in the schedule shall be based on the LIC Housing Prime Lending Rate (LHPLR) plus/mines the spread as prevailing at the time of sanction (subject to quarterly review) as fixed by LICHFL from time to time.  The revised floating rate of interest will be applicable w.e.f. Ist January, Ist April, Ist July or Ist October as the case may be”.  Along with other terms and conditions of loan agreement, inter-alia amongst other, it was also a condition under clause 2.8 prepayment of loan: LICHFL may, in its sole discretion and on such terms, as to pre-payment charges as mentioned in the Schedule hereto etc., prescribe/permit prepayment/acceleration in payment of Equated Montlhly Instalments (EMI) at the request of the borrower.  In the event, LICHFL permits any prepayment/acceleration, the repayment schedule for the loan may be amended/altered by LICHFL for giving effect to such prepayment/acceleration, and as such amended/altered repayment schedule shall be binding upon the borrower.  In the event of prepayment, the new repayment/amortization schedule shall be effective from the EMI date of the subsequent month.  We find modic-um of merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the Ops No.2 and 3.  So, we find that the Ops have rightly charged the amount from the complainant. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.02.01.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.178/12.

Date of instt.: 08.06.2012. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 02.01.2015.

Inder Bansal son of Sh. Chiranji Lal, resident of H.No.203, Model Town, Jind Road, Kaithal, District Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Vijay Arora Agent/authorized representative of L.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd. having Office at Kurukshetra Road, Kaithal.

2. L.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Branch Office Karnal, at SCO No.144, Main Market, Sector 13, Karnal, District Karnal.

3. L.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd. through its Managing Director, office at Back Office Laxmi Insurance Building, Assaf Ali Road, New Delhi.

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Ashok Gautam, Advocate for complainant.

                        Op No.1 already exparte.

Sh. Manoj Ichhpilani, Advocate for the opposite parties.No.2 & 3.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he borrowed three loans from the Ops.  It is alleged that the complainant deposited the instalments at Central Bank of India, Branch Kaithal in the account of LIC HFL Area Office, Karnal.  It is further alleged that the complainant was having three loan accounts bearing No.5287 for amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, second account number was 6967 for the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and the third one was having account No.8687 for amount of Rs.2,00,00/-.  It is further alleged that the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.10,528/- per month as collective instalment of all the three loans and the complainant never defaulted for the same.  It is further alleged that in the month of June, 2009 the Ops deposited Rs.2700/- less in account No.5287.  It is further alleged that the complainant cleared the accounts, then he was astonished to hear that the Ops said that he is clearing the accounts prior to time, so, he has to pay penalty for this.  It is further alleged that the Ops demanded Rs.17,637/- from the complainant for all the three loans and the complainant had to pay the same under undue influence and in order to get rid of the Ops.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.1 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 02.08.2012.  Ops No.2 and 3 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and for adjudication of which, only the civil court is the best platform; that the complainant availed three loans bearing loan account Nos.15005287, 15006967 and 15008687 to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.2,25,000/- respectively from the answering Ops, thereby signing over the loan agreements and accepted the terms and conditions of the loan agreements.  The borrower agreed that the availed loan facility shall be repayable by way of 180 equated monthly instalments of Rs.3776/- each for the loan account No.14015005287, 144 equated monthly instalments of Rs.3597/- each for the loan account No.14015006967 and 180 equated monthly instalments of Rs.2787/- each for the loan account No.14015008687.  The loans were under the scheme of floating rate of interest as opted by the complainant.  As per the clause 4(a)(iii) of loan agreement No.14015005287 and 14015006967, where the loan is under floating rate of interest, the interest stipulated in the schedule of the loan offer letter shall be reviewed after every six months based on the prevailing market conditions as judged by LICHFL.  The revised floating rate of interest would increase, decrease or remain the same; It was a condition in the sanction letter under Sr.No.10: fees on pre-payment: 2% on the amount of loan pre-paid; that according to the terms and conditions of the loan agreements, the pre-payment charges were taken from the borrower and since he had accepted the terms and conditions of the loan agreements became ready to pay the same and deposited the same with his free will and consent.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties. 

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant borrowed three loans from the Ops.  The complainant deposited the instalments at Central Bank of India, Branch Kaithal in the account of LIC HFL Area Office, Karnal.  The complainant was having three loan accounts bearing No.5287 for amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, second account number was 6967 for the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and the third one was having account No.8687 for amount of Rs.2,00,00/-.  The complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.10,528/- per month as collective instalment of all the three loans and the complainant never defaulted for the same.  In the month of June, 2009 the Ops deposited Rs.2700/- less in account No.5287.  The Ops also demanded Rs.17,637/- as penalty from the complainant for all the three loans.  Ld. Counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 vehemently contends that as per the clause 4(a)(iii) of loan agreement No.14015005287 and 14015006967, where the loan is under floating rate of interest, the interest stipulated in the schedule of the loan offer letter shall be reviewed after every six months based on the prevailing market conditions as judged by LICHFL.  The revised floating rate of interest would increase, decrease or remain the same.  Similarly in loan account No.14015008687 under clause 2.2 of loan agreement “in the event of borrower of opts for the floating rate of interest offered by LICHFL, the rate of interest as stipulated in the schedule shall be based on the LIC Housing Prime Lending Rate (LHPLR) plus/mines the spread as prevailing at the time of sanction (subject to quarterly review) as fixed by LICHFL from time to time.  The revised floating rate of interest will be applicable w.e.f. Ist January, Ist April, Ist July or Ist October as the case may be”.  Along with other terms and conditions of loan agreement, inter-alia amongst other, it was also a condition under clause 2.8 prepayment of loan: LICHFL may, in its sole discretion and on such terms, as to pre-payment charges as mentioned in the Schedule hereto etc., prescribe/permit prepayment/acceleration in payment of Equated Montlhly Instalments (EMI) at the request of the borrower.  In the event, LICHFL permits any prepayment/acceleration, the repayment schedule for the loan may be amended/altered by LICHFL for giving effect to such prepayment/acceleration, and as such amended/altered repayment schedule shall be binding upon the borrower.  In the event of prepayment, the new repayment/amortization schedule shall be effective from the EMI date of the subsequent month.  We find modic-um of merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the Ops No.2 and 3.  So, we find that the Ops have rightly charged the amount from the complainant. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.02.01.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.