Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1049/2016

Sanjeev Sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

H.C. Kaushal

04 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                       

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/1049/2016
Date of Institution	:	05/12/2016
Date of Decision	:	04/04/2018

 

Sanjeev Sood son of late Sh. Narinder Nath Sood, resident of House No.947, Sector 2, Panchkula.

…Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited through its Managing Director/ Authorised Signatory having its Office : Ramon House, HT Parekh Marg, 169 Backbay Reclamation, Churchgate, Mumbai 400020.

2.     HDFC Bank Ltd., through its Branch Manager having its office : SCO No.371-372, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

…Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                              

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Daljit Singh, Counsel for complainant
	:	Ms. Rupali Shekhar Verma, Counsel for OP-1
	:	OP-2 ex-parte

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Allegations are, loan of Rs.20.00 lakhs was borrowed by the complainant from OP-2 to purchase  flat No.521, Block C, Wellington Estate, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, Mohali vide home loan agreement adjustable rate  dated 31.01.2011 bearing Loan Account No.601153867 at floating rate of interest.  The complainant has paid all the installments of loan beginning from February 2011 till date without default. The complainant had taken second loan from the OPs on 1.12.2014 whose account statement was received in January 2015 and thereafter he was surprise to see unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs.  The case of the complainant is, interest was overcharged in violation of the instructions of the RBI and the statement was got calculated from the Chartered Accountant and excess interest of Rs.57,840/- was received by the OPs.  Hence, the present consumer complaint with the prayer to charge interest at floating rate, per mandate of the RBI; refund the excess amount of Rs.57,840/-; remove/rectify clause No.2.13 in the loan agreement alongwith compensation and litigation charges.
2.         OP-1 contested the allegations made in the consumer complaint and furnished reply. The crux of the reply is rate of interest has been charged per agreement entered into inter se parties.  It is the case, no terms of agreement dated 31.3.2011 (Annexure R-1) were violated.  It is further the case, facts averred are misconceived as there has to be variation in the rate of interest of the loan taken in 2011 as well as in 2014.  OP had also taken shelter under clause 2.13 of the loan agreement. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         OP-2 did not appear despite due service, therefore, vide order dated 3.4.2017, it was proceeded ex-parte.
4.         Rejoinder filed by the complainant reiterating the claim as maintained in the consumer complaint.
5.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.         We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case. Our conclusions, culled out from the record, are as under :-
7.         Appraisal of the record shows, agreement Annexure R-1 created the rights and liabilities with regard to payment of loan inter se parties.  The terms and conditions of the agreement are not in dispute before us at all.  We will refer to clause 2.13 of the loan agreement which reads as under :-

“2.13         The spread applicable to the borrower for the purpose of computation of AIR is as indicated in the Schedule.  In the event of HDFC offering revised spread in future, the borrower shall have the option to opt for the revised spread in respect of the loan, provided if such option is made available by HDFC, with prospective effect upon payment of such fee and execution of documents as HDFC may prescribe in that behalf.  It shall be the borrower’s responsibility to keep himself informed about the revision in spread from time to time.”

The complainant felt aggrieved with this clause in the loan agreement and under relief No.(iii) has prayed to remove/rectify clause No.2.13 in the loan agreement being anti-consumer and irrational in approach. This is the own agreement executed between the parties. Now it is being retracted being anti-consumer and irrational in approach. We are afraid of such like declaration being given while sitting as District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum under the Consumer Protection Act. If it is anti-consumer or say irrational, there lies a constitutional remedy to impeach its validity by way of writ before the Hon’ble High Court and not before this Forum. We do not possess any such power to declare it as anti-consumer or irrational.  If there is existence of such like clause, it cannot be said that the rate of interest has been overcharged. 

8.         The complainant in his complaint  made reference that he got the rate of interest assessed from the Chartered Accountant and his report is Annexure C-6 which shows that overcharged interest is Rs.57,840/-. We will refer to the footnote of Annexure C-6, which is reproduced as under :-

        “This report is prepared on the basis of rate of interest charged by HDFC Ltd. to other customers during the relevant period. We have not verified for the accuracy of documents produced before us and does not give any exact opinion on the report produced.”

A perusal of this footnote shows that the Chartered Accountant has calculated the rate of interest on the basis of rate of interest charged by HDFC Ltd. to other customers during the relevant period. This itself shows, the rate of interest as per agreement in this case has not at all been calculated. What were the terms and conditions of the agreement of other customers is not known and moreover it is the sweet will of the creditor, individual case wise with regard to the charge of interest or if it is discriminatory by the nationalized bank, remedy will lie with the RBI or other constitutional courts and not with the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act.  We could only examine any unfair trade, restrictive trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

9.         In view of the above referred record, the matter falls outside the scope of a consumer dispute or to say unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.  Hence, we proceed to dismiss the present consumer complaint.  Parties are left to bear their own costs.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/
04/04/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	President