JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

The complainant took a housing loan from the opposite party for purchase of a residential house allotted to him by Unitech Ltd. in a project, namely, Alder Grove – Nirvana Country-II, Gurgaon. He executed a home loan agreement with the opposite party on 25.8.2010. The grievance of the complainant seems to be that the 4^th instalment payable to the builder was prematurely released by the opposite party which confirmed to him that the construction work had commenced whereas in fact, the construction work had not actually commenced. He also seems to be aggrieved on account of the alleged excess interest charged from him. The complainant filed a consumer complaint before the concerned District Forum for the redressal of his grievances. The said complaint having been dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, he is before this Commission seeking the following reliefs:-

“(i)     Direct HDFC Bank to refund the amount of Rs.3,35,777 being the excess interest paid by the Complainants for premature release of the fourth instalment to Unitech along with interest on this amount in an amount of Rs.1,84,907 from 01.06.2013 to 31.12.2017 and further interest at the rate of 12% per annum until the date of payment;

(ii)      Direct HDFC Bank to refund the amount of Rs.79,696 being the excess interest paid by the Complainants due to failure of HDFC to revise the interest rate on their loan account along with interest on this amount in an amount of Rs.38,359 from 29.12.2013 to 31.12.2017 and further interest at the rate of 12%  per annum until the date of payment;

(iii)     Direct HDFC Bank to pay compensation/damages to the Complainants in an amount of Rs.3,00,000 for mental agony, harassment, distress and hardship undergone by the Complainants due to deficiency of services and unfair trade practices committed by HDFC Bank; 

(iv)    Direct HDFC Bank to pay the amount of Rs.50,000 towards costs of the present proceedings;”

2.      I have perused the complaint as also the written version which the opposite party had filed before the District Forum. In the written version, the opposite party besides taking a preliminary objection that the complaint was barred by limitation had stated that the 4^th installment was released to the builder on the specific instructions of the complainant who was fully aware that no work had commenced at the site and had, despite that, instructed disbursement of the 4^th instalment to the builder.

3.      As regards the alleged excess interest, it was stated in the reply that the interest rate was covered by the Schedule I, II and III of the Loan Agreement. It is further alleged that w.e.f. 1.4.2012, the complainant had agreed to an interest rate of RPLR minus spread 4.5% with a rate revision cycle of three months as per Schedule III.  As per clause 2.13 of the Loan Agreement, in the event of the opposite party offering a revised spread in the future, the borrower had the option to opt for the revised spread upon fulfilling the required terms and conditions. On 3.5.2012, he submitted an application for switching over from the existing negative spread over RPLR to higher negative spread i.e. from existing spread of -4.5.% of RPLR to spread of -5.5% over RPLR. The said request was accepted by the opposite party w.e.f. 1.5.2012.

4.      A perusal of the email sent by the complainant to the opposite party at 11.37 a.m. on June 15, 2012 would clearly show that he was aware of the delay in commencement of  construction. He informed the opposite party that he was pushing Unitech to remove interest from his account as delay in commencement of construction was their fault. He also instructed the opposite party that disbursal cheque be not given unless he got in writing that interest was removed from his account. The aforesaid email leaves no doubt that the complainant was fully aware of the delay on the part of the builder in commencement of the construction. Despite that, vide subsequent email sent at 04.09 p.m. on 15.6.2012, the complainant specifically asked the opposite party to give the cheque to Unitech Guy Mr. Gurpal who would be coming that very day. The said cheque having been handed over to the representative of the Unitech on the aforesaid specific written instruction of the complainant, the opposite party cannot be said to be deficient in rendering services to the complainant on account of its having released the 4^th instalment despite the builder having not commenced the construction.

5.      As far as the interest rates are concerned, the same are governed by Schedule I, II and III of the Loan Agreement duly signed by the complainant. It was on 3.5.2012 that the complainant in order to take advantage of the change in spread, requested the opposite party to switch over  from then existing negative spread over RPLR to a higher negative spread. The existing negative spread at that time was  -4.5% of RPLR which the opposite party had changed to spread of -5.5% over RPLR. The rate of interest was changed w.e.f. 1.5.2012 as the request for switch over was received only on 3.5.2012. In view of  clause 2.13 of the Loan Agreement, the change in the rate of interest on account of revision of the speared could have been prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the grievance of the complainant with respect to the interest charged from him also is devoid of any merit.

6.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the complaint which is accordingly dismissed.