Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/545/2018

India Infoline Housing Finance Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vivek Leela s/o S.K. Leela - Opp.Party(s)

Ram Singh Verma

14 Mar 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 545/2018

 

India Infoline Housing Finance Ltd., 307-312, 3^rd floor, Ambition Tower, Malan Ka Chauraha, Agrsen Circle, C-Scheme,Jaipur.

Vs.

Vivek Leela s/o S.K.Leela r/o T 315-316 Rangoli Garden, Maharana Pratap Marg, Kanakpura, Jaipur.

 

 

Date of Order 14.3.2019

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. Avinash Kumbhaj counsel for the appellant

Mr. Ashutosh Bhatia counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

2

 

This appeal is filed against the order of the learned District Forum, Jaipur 4^th dated 23.4.2018 whereby the claim is allowed against the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellant is that they were entitled for charging foreclosure amount and the claim should have been dismissed.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that order has rightly been passed. No interference is warranted.

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the loan was sanctioned to the respondent on floating rate of interest.

 

The contention of the appellant is that as per Anx.5 circular dated 3.9.2014 of National Housing Bank the foreclosure charges are being forbidden if the loan is sanctioned to individual borrowers and as per circular of Reserve Bank of India dated 14.7.2014 exemption has been

3

 

given only to the individual borrowers and impugned loan has been sanctioned to the respondent and so also to Gangaur Sarees. Hence, it is not an individual borrowers and foreclosure charges are payable.

 

The contention of the respondent is that no condition for foreclosure charges was agreed between the parties but the contention is not acceptable as the home loan is sanctioned subject to the conditions of clause 2.8 and 10.6 and undoubtedly these clauses deals with pre-payment charges. Hence, the appellants were entitled to charge foreclosure charges or pre-payment charges.

 

In view of the above , the appeal is allowed and the order of the Forum below dated 23.4.2018 is set aside.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

 

nm