Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/489/2021

Balwinder Singh Gill - Complainant(s)

Versus

Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shailendra Sharma

02 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/489/2021
Date of Institution	:	27/07/2021
Date of Decision	:	02/11/2023

 

Balwinder Singh Gill aged 62 years, S/o Sh.Bijla Singh, R/o H.No.47, Sector 10 Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

M/s HDFC Bank Ltd., SCO No.153-155, Sector-8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its authorized representative Nandan Singh Rawat/Aditya Kochar/Sanjeev Chugh/Sachin Kapoor.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	Ms.Rupali S.Verma, alongwith Ms.Neetu Singh, Advocates for OP.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had approached the OP in the year 2003 and applied for a housing loan of Rs.2,00,000/- which was sanctioned and disbursed to the complainant by the OP in terms of loan agreement dated 6.6.2003 (Annexure C-1). The complainant kept on paying the EMI regularly without any default and the loan came to an end on 31.07.2018. Despite the fact that the complainant had repaid the entire loan amount by the end of July 2018, yet the OP kept on deducting the monthly installments from the saving bank account of the complainant and finally deducting Rs.69,783/- from the bank account of complainant. It is also stated that as per loan agreement the last EMI was due on 31.7.2018 whereas the OP kept on taking EMI even thereafter till May 2019, the complainant noticed that the OP has taken Rs.1,05,187/- as excess payment from the complainant. The complainant approached the OP and confronted the OP about the overcharging. But the OP could not give any convincing reply. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OP (Annexure C-4). Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the complainant availed the floating rate of interest and therefore, the rate of interest increased with increase in retail prime lending rate and also decreased with decrease in detailed prime lending rate. The number of equated monthly installments changed due to change in rate of interest. It is further stated that at the time when the complainant availed housing loan, the retail prime lending rate was 10% p.a. and he was given benefit negative spread/discount of 1.25% p.a. and was thus charged 8.75% p.a. The negative spread of 1.25% was fixed and agreed to by the parties herein. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP.
3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     On perusal of complaint, it is gathered that the main grievance of the complainant is that the number of EMIs on account of loan taken from the OP have been increased arbitrarily and no intimation has been given by the OP about change of interest rates to be charged from time to time and the excess amount recovered have not been refunded.
7.     On perusal of records annexed by OP as Annexure OP-1, it is observed that the OP has availed the loan on adjustable/variable rate of interest.

        In view of the above, we are of the view that the OP has rightfully changed the amount of EMI or the number of EMI.

8.       As far as the second grievance is concerned, we are of the view that the OP was duty bound to intimate to the complainant about the rate of interest to be charged/varied on every occasion of charge, which has not been done by the OP, hence, the OP is deficient in providing service to the complainant, which has caused mental harassment to the complainant. 

9.       In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP is directed as under :-

1. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.
2. to pay ₹7000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

10.      This order be complied with by the OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.

11.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.

12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
02/11/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member