Complainant/petitioner applied for housing loan from the respondent bank.  Loan of Rs.7 lakh was sanctioned and disbursed to the petitioner.  Petitioner opted to repay the loan in 180 equated instalments.  The loan application was processed and sanction letter was issued on 13.7.2004 wherein in the column for rate of interest it was mentioned ‘7.5% per annum or as applicable at the time of disbursement”.  According to the petitioner, he had opted for fixed rate of interest.  Petitioner filed the complaint against the respondent alleging that the respondent could not charge floating rate of interest as the petitioner had opted for fixed rate of interest in his application.

        District Forum dismissed the complaint, aggrieved against which, petitioner filed the appeal, which has been dismissed with the following observations :

“No doubt in the application filed by the complainants they had opted for fixed rate of interest.  In other words, they had given an offer to take the loan at a fixed rate.  This offer was not accepted by the Bank and rather it accepted the offer by saying that they would charge floating rate of interest i.e. 7.5% per annum or the rate of interest as applicable at the time of disbursement.  Even, if this was to be considered as counter offer from the Bank, the complainants accepted the same and took the loan.  It was open to the complainants not to accept the loan at the floating rate of interest, which was offered by the Bank.  Having accepted the offer from the Bank, now they cannot turn around and say that the Bank must charge fixed rate of interest.  This is precisely what has been held by the District Forum.  Finding no infirmity in the order of the District Forum, we affirm the same.”

        We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Petitioner applied for loan which was sanctioned to him with floating rate of interest at the rate of 7.5%.  It was for the petitioner to either accept or reject the same.  After having accepted the loan on floating rate of interest, petitioner cannot turn around and say that interest at fixed rate be charged from him.  This Commission cannot change the terms of the agreement.

        No ground for interference is made out.  Dismissed.

        Counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner has already cleared the loan and the respondent bank has issued a ‘No Dues Certificate’ to the petitioner.