BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.924/2011 against C.C.No.163/2009, Dist. Forum, Guntur.
Between:
REPCO HOME FINANCE LTD.,
Rep. by V.Krishna S/o.V.Veerashekhar Rao,
G.P.A-cum-Asst. Manager, Office at 5-37-4,
Fourth Line, Sri Lakshmi Complex,
Brodipet, Guntur-522 002. … Appellant/
Opp.party
And
Challa Ratna Kumari, W/o.Rattaiah,
R/o.Near Sai Baba Temple, D.No.8-5-25/1,
5th ward, Sattenapalli Town & DMC,
Guntur District. … Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. L.Harish
Counsel for the respondent : M/s.V.Gowrisankar Rao
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO , PRESIDENT,
SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER,
AND
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE.
Oral Order : (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Hon’ble Member).
***
This appeal is directed against the order dt.25.2.2011 of the District Forum, Guntur in C.C.No.163/2009 filed by the respondent/complainant seeking direction to the opposite party for change of rate of interest and the years, as per the contractual terms of agreement and to pay compensation and costs.
The brief case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is that the opposite party conducted housing loan mela at Guntur and the opposite party disbursed the loan of Rs.8 lakhs and agreed to receive the loan amount together with interest in 120 instalments at Rs.10,135/- p.m. The complainant preferred to avail the loan on fixed rate of interest at 9% p.a. The complainant came to know that the opposite party increased number of instalments from 10 years to more years and was charging interest at 11.75 % floating rate. The complainant signed on the agreement for 10 years for 120 monthly instalments at 9% p.a. fixed rate of interest. The collection of interest under floating system at 9% or at 11.75% was in violation of the agreement. The conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
Resisting the complaint, opposite party filed written version, denying the material allegations made in the complaint and contended that the complainant availed housing loan from them on 28.12.2005 and by then the rate of interest was 9% p.a. on floating. The letter of sanction dt.28.12.2005 was duly accepted and signed by the complainant. The complainant has also singed on loan agreement in terms of the sanction of loan dt.5.1.2006, accepting all the terms and conditions of the agreement. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed with costs.
During the course of enquiry, the complainant filed Exs.A1 to A5 and the opposite party filed Exs.B1 to B4, in support of their respective contentions.
Upon hearing the counsel for both the parties and on consideration of the material on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint, in part, directing the opposite party to calculate rate of interest at 9% p.a. fixed and limit the number of instalments to 120 only, to pay Rs.1000/- towards mental agony and to pay Rs.500/- towards costs, to the complainant.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred the above appeal contending that the order of the District Forum is based on erroneous conclusions .That the District Forum ought to have held that the interest on the loan borrowed by the respondent/complainant shall float from time to time and it is not fixed interest as claimed by her. That the District Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint on the ground that interest levied on the loan amount will vary from time to time and some times, it may go down from what it is charged initially, as per the guidelines of R.B.I. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed setting aside the impugned order of the District Forum.
We heard the counsel for both parties and perused documents filed by both the parties and the material on record.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is vitiated by misappreciation of fact or law?
The factual matrix of the case is not in dispute. The simple question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the interest charged on the loan borrowed by the complainant is, floating or fixed?
Ex.B2 is the Loan Agreement. As seen from the schedule of Ex.B2, the rate of interest is mentioned as follows:
“2.2 Interest
(a). Applicable rate of interest 9.00% per annum.
(b). Concessional rate of interest -% per annum
©. Floating/Fixed rate of interest.”
The word “Fixed” is underlined, which indicates that the rate of interest agreed is fixed and not floating. Ex.A1 is the letter given by the opposite party at the time of loan mela. The relevant portion is extracted below:
“ With reference to your enquiry dated 18-12-2005, we are glad to inform that we are in-principle agreeable to sanction a loan as detailed below subject to our usual terms & conditions:
Scheme : (800000/-) Construction
Loan Amount : 800000/-
Period of loan : 10 years
Rate of interest : 8.50% ( Floating) (as 9% (Fixed)
EMI payable :
We welcome you to REPCO HOME FAMILY
Authorised Signatory
Note: You are requested to remit processing fee of 1% on loan amount as early as possible in order to process your application further.”
As rightly observed by the District Forum, Ex.A1 amounts to an offer and Ex.B2 agreement amounts to a contract. Under Ex.A1, the rate of interest agreed was 9% fixed, but not 9% floating as contended by the opposite party. The contention of the opposite party that rate of interest agreed was 9% floating is falsified by Exs.A1 and B2. Under these circumstances, Article 2.2 of Ex.B2 agreement, dealing with interest at 9% fixed, subject to changes, if any, is of no help to the opposite party. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the agreed rate of interest under B2 agreement is at 9% p.a. fixed and not floating as contended by the opposite party. Therefore, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order of the District Forum.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order of the District Forum. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
MEMBER
Pm* Dt. 30.11.2012
