Haryana

Karnal

CC/452/2020

Mange Ram Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ms.Anita

15 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 452 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.23.10.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:15.04.2024

 

Mange Ram Rana s/o Shri Lilu Ram, resident of house no.242, sector-5, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, Sector-12, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                        …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Ms. Anita, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Narinder Kumar, counsel for the OP.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant was constructing his house over his plot situated at Sector-5, Urban  Estate, Karnal as such, he availed a home loan amounting to Rs.44,25,000/- from the OP, vide agreement no.HHLKAR00077365 dated 26.11.2010 and loan account no.HLKNL1011030 for tenure 120 months. The complainant availed the loan facility from the OP on a fixed interest rate of 8.5 per annum for the first two years and floating rate of interest from 9.75 to 14% per annum for the rest of the period. At the time of availing the said loan facility, complainant was assured by the OP that the rate of interest will be charged on the loan amount as mentioned above in letter and spirit. The amount was disbursed to the complainant in different installments from 30.11.2010 to 28.02.2011. The complainant starting paying his installments from 01.04.2011 and subsequently paid all the dues installment till the month of October-2020. The complainant while paying the installment of October-2020 enquired about the status of pending dues with the OP and came to know that the OP has adjusted the loan installment of the month of October-2020 as installment no.115 whereas the complainant has paid all the installments as per schedule. After that complainant approached the OP and sought explanation and statement of account as well as the copy of the agreement which were not provided by the OP at the time of execution of the agreement. The complainant was provided with the copy of agreement and schedule with the agreement whereby the complainant came to know that the OP has indulged in unfair trade practice and has charged higher rate of interest on the loan amount for the year 30.11.2010 to 30.11.2012. The OP has mentioned rate of interest as 8.5% per annum for the month of 01.04.2011 and 9.5% per annum interest has been charged from the period of 01.05.2011 to 01.04.2022. The OP has charged interest as per its wish and same was not in consonance with the approved rate of Reserve Bank of India. The periodic rate of interest of Reserve Bank of India does not match with the interest charged by the OP and the OP has not furnished any plausible reason for that. The complainant also sought information regarding the floating rate of interest imposed by the OP on the loan amount but OP refused to give the details regarding charging higher floating rate of interest on the loan amount. OP is also demanding installment upto the month of 05.05.2022 which is illegal and not binding on the rights of the complainant.  As per schedule, the tenure of the agreement is 120 months whereas the OP is illegally demanding the excessive amount beyond the agreed period. The complainant requested the OP several times not to charge the excessive amount beyond the tenure mentioned in the agreement and also not to charge excessive rate of interest on the loan amount but OP is adamant in recovering the illegal excessive amount. In this way, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence,  complainant filed the present complaint seeking      direction to the OP not to charge and recover the excessive loan amount beyond the schedule of loan agreement and further directed to issue the Clearance Certificate and to return the original title deeds of the property of the complainant, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for mental, physical and financial harassment and to pay Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses.

3.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that to avail the loan facility from the OP, the complainant signed and submitted a Loan Application Form to the OP. The OP, vide the loan Sanction Letter dated 30.11.2010 has sanctioned an amount of Rs.44,25,000/- for construction on property being plot no.242, sector-5, Karnal. The loan was sanctioned to Mange Ram Rana as applicant and co-applicant Nainpal Singh Rana and Maya Devi. The purpose of loan was stated to be ‘construction’ and the abovesaid property was offered as security for the loan. In pursuant to the loan sanction letter, a loan agreement dated 30.11.2010 was executed between the complainant and the OP. The loan was repayable by the complainant alongwith an Adjustable Interest Rate (ARI). As per sanction letter the rate of interest was fixed @ 8.50% till 31.03.2011, thereafter  @ 9.50% from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 and thereafter @ 9.75% floating for balance tenure. The loan was repayable by way of 120 equated monthly installments but the number of installments and amount payable are subject to change in the interest rate as applicable. Further, the loan agreement obligated the complainant to pay the OP regularly each month the EMIs as laid down in the Loan Agreement and also imposed the obligation upon the complainant to ensure that there would be no repayment default for any reason whatsoever. It is further pleaded that OP is regulated by RBI by way of Circular namely DNBC/PD/Cc no.95/03.05.002/2006-07 dated 24.05.2007 and RBI/2011-12/26 dated 01.07.2011, the Master Circular wherein RBI has laid own guidelines for fair practice code for NBFC wherein NBFC is free to fix interest rates but were required to follow the guidelines  namely “Boards of NBFC are, therefore, advice to layout appropriate internal policies, principles and procedures in determining interest rates and processing other charges……”  Also qua allegations of change of interest rates, it is submitted that the complainant and other borrower themselves choose floating/adjustable rate of interest as is matter of record in loan sanction letter, loan agreement which is signed and executed by the complainant and other borrower on his will and volition.  The articles 13.1 and 13.2 expressly gave rights to OP to change, alter, modify the interest rates and the entire schedule.  Further, it is submitted that the number of EMIs are likely to vary depending upon  the variance in the adjustable rate of interest. The number of EMIs can be more or less depending upon ARI, in the case of complainant, the rate of interest being variable after fixed rate kept on changing, resultantly the number of EMIs varies time to time. If we go through the account statement, it can be easily found that rate of interest applied upto 01.04.2011 was fixed @ 8.5% fixed, upto 01.04.2012 it was applied @ 9.5% fixed, from 01.04.2012 was floating @ 12.6%, then from 01.04.2013 its again applied at @ 12.6%, then from 05.10.2013 its again applied @ 12.6% then from 05.06.2015 it was applied @10.3% then from 05.06.2018 it was gain applied @10.5%. In the loan agreement/sanction letter is very clear in schedule that the rate of interest at the execution of agreement was fixed 8.50% then fixed @ 9.50% thereafter with adjustable interest rate 14% per annum. Adjustment rate of interest : IHFL-FRR+4.25% per annum =9.75% per annum and under loan agreement the complainant and other borrower provided right to alter, amend and increase the interest rate.

4.             It is further pleaded that complainant and others borrowers had opted for the floating rate of interest by an agreement, duly singed by them on their own free will without any undue influence that too after understating each and every terms of the Loan Agreement. Therefore, the rate of interest is bound to change whenever there is a change in FRR of the company. The FRR change is monitored, revised and approved by the asset liability committee of the company as mandated by NHB. During this period, FRR/PLR has changed on various occasions. Accordingly, all the banks and financial institutions have changed their FRR. The IHFL floating reference rate means the per centage rate P.A. decided by IHFL from time to time and announced/notified by IHFL in such forms and manner as deemed appropriate by IHFL from time to time as  IHFL-FFR. Furthermore, the OP has regularly informed the complainant of the change in rate of interest and IFFL-FRR through emails as provided at the time of availing the loan facilities and has acted in compliance of the Fair Code of Conduct. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complainant.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of Home Loan Agreement Ex.C1, copy of account statement Ex.C2, copy of due notice Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 19.10.2021.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar, Regional Legal Manager Ex.OP1/A, authority letter Ex.OP1, copy of loan application form Ex.OP2, copy of sanction letter Ex.OP3, copy of loan agreement Ex.OP4, copy of letter dated 24.05.2007 Ex.OP5, copy of circular dated 01.07.2011 of Reserve Bank of India Ex.OP6, copy of statement of account Ex.OP7, copies of emails dated 1.5.2015, 06.11.2015, 19.08.2018, 17.08.2018, 27.08.2018, 30.09.2018, 30.09.2018 Ex.C8 to Ex14, copy of disbursal memo Ex.OP15 and closed the evidence on 24.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

 8.            We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant availed a home loan amounting to Rs.44,25,000/- from the OP.  The said loan amount was to be repaid in 120 installments. The complainant availed the said loan facility on a fixed interest rate of 8.5 per annum for the first two years and floating rate of internet from 9.75 to 14% per annum for the rest of the period. The complainant paid all the installments till the month of October-2020. The OP has charged higher rate of interest on the loan amount for the year 30.11.2010 to 30.11.2012. The complainant sought information regarding the floating rate of interest imposed by the OP of the loan amount but OP refused to give the detail regarding charging of higher floating rate of interest on the loan amount of the complainant. OP is also demanding installment upto the month of 05.05.2022 which is illegal. The complainant requested the OP several times not to charge the excessive amount and also not to charge excessive rate of interest but OP did not pay any attention to the request of complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the OP sanctioned a loan of Rs.44,25,000/- for construction on property, vide the loan Sanction Letter dated 30.11.2010. The loan was repayable by way of 120 monthly installments by the complainant alongwith an Adjustable Interest Rate (ARI) but the number of installments and amount payable are subject to change consequent upon changes in the interest rate applicable. As per the articles 13.1 and 13.2 expressly gave rights to OP to change, alter, modify the interest rates and the entire schedule.  The rate of interest is bound to change whenever there is a change in FRR of the company. The OP has regularly informed the complainant of the change in rate of interest and IFFL-FRR through emails. Complainant has failed to obey the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

12.           The complainant has alleged that as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the interest was to be charged at the rate of 8.5% per annum upto 01.04.2011 and thereafter 9.5% per annum was to be charged till 01.04.2022, but the OP has charged higher rate of interest, which is not in consonance with the approved rate of Reserve Bank of India. On the other hand, OP has alleged that interest has been charged as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement and nothing excess has been charged from the complainant.

 13.          Complainant has challenged the rate of interest charged by OP from the date of availing the loan amount. The loan was disbursed in the year 2010. It is not possible that complainant has not checked his account details since 2010 to 2022.

 14.          The dispute in the present complaint with regard to rendition of loan account from 2010 to 2022 and same is required elaborate evidence and same cannot be decided in summary process under Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence, the best platform to decide the matter in dispute is the Civil Court where elaborate and detailed testimony can be produced by the parties. In this regard, we are placed reliance upon the observations made in case titled as Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007 (4) CPJ Page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble National Commission that complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court. Further, in case titled as M/s The Bills through its Proprietor Versus PNB reported in 1998 (1) CPC page 150, decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh it has been held that complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed. Furthermore, the complainant has already approached the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court twice on the same cause of action. Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 27.07.2023 has observed that:

“apart therefrom a parallel grievance redressal mechanism under the Banking Regulations in the form of Banking Ombudsman has also been notified by the State Government. Filing of the present petition is clearly under a wrong advice. The present petition is accordingly dismissed at this stage for the above reasons and noticing that efficacious alternative remedies are available to the petitioner. The petitioner may, if so advised, take recourse to the alternative remedies available to him in accordance with law”.

 

14.          Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down the aforesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the case, the present complaint is not maintainable and disposed of accordingly with the liberty to complainant to approach the Civil Court, for his grievances, if so desired. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced
Dated: 15.04.2024 

  President,       

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                  (Vineet Kaushik)              (Dr. Suman Singh) 

                     Member                             Member