( Delivered on 12/10/2018)

Per Smt. Jayshree Yengal, Hon’ble Member

1. This appeal challenges the order dated 9/7/2014, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Akola partly allowing the consumer complaint bearing No. 178/2013 and thereby directing the opposite party/appellant herein to give to the complainant the benefit  of variation  in spread percentage of interest over loan amount  for the period from February 2005 to April 2013  and the OP to pay the complainant Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- more as compensation for mental and physical harassment and litigation expenses respectively and the directions mentioned above be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
2. The respondent Mr. Madhusudan Chandulal Bhangadia is referred as complainant and appellant HDFC Ltd. through its Manager is referred as OP for the sake of convenience.
3. Facts in brief as set out by the complainant in his consumer complaint are as under.

1. The complainant Mr. Mr. Madhusudan Chandulal Bhangadia made application for a housing loan from the OP HDFC Ltd. in the year 2004. The OP  informed the complainant that the interest on the loan amount would be on floating rate. The spread percentage which varies from time to time would be deducted from RPLR(Retail Prime Lending Rate) percentage and the interest would be charged at the net RPLR after deduction. The complainant availed loan of Rs. 4,50,000/-towards housing loan in the month of July 2004. The said loan was to repaid in 120  monthly  installments of Rs. 5,342/-

It is the contention of the complainant that the OP never informed the applicable RPLR and the variation in the spread percentage. On 23/4/2013, the complainant visited the office of the OP to enquire about the balance housing loan, theinterest being charged on the outstanding balance, the date of last monthly payment, the outstanding balance etc. The officers of the OP informed the complainant that the interest chargeable at that time was RPLR 16.5 percent minus Spread 2.25 percent. Therefore net chargeable interest was 14.25 percent. The complainant objected to such exorbitant interest. The OP then informed the complainant that if he paid Rs.598/- by 28/4/2013 then the spreadwhich was 6.25 percent at that timewould be deducted from the RPLR and the net chargeable interest would be 10.25 percent.

2. The complainant by letters dated 4/5/2013 and 15/05/2013 asked for the details from the OP about the interest being charged on his home loan, the variable spread percentage and RPLR etc. The OP by letter dated 22/5/2013 informed the complainant its inability to give the details of the variable spread percentage since the year 2004 to 2014.

It is the contention of the complainant that the OP did not give the benefit of spread percentage to the complainant and the OP charged very high interest on the loan amount. The OP failed to inform the complainant the variation in the spread percentage from February 2005 to April2013 whereas it was agreed by the OP that it would inform the complainant about the variation in the spread percentage from time to time.

3. The complainant had  paid Rs. 2,50,000/- in excess to the outstanding payable loan amount as the OP had charged very high interest rate. The period of repayment was increased by three years more. The complainant as a result, was subjected to heavy financial burden and mental and physical harassment. The complainant issued a legal notice to the OP on 8/7/2013 and called upon the OP to refund Rs. 2,50,000/- to him (complainant) which the OP had recovered in excess to the outstanding loan amount. The OP failed to comply the legal notice despite its receipt.
4. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service against OP,  filed a consumer complaint and sought for payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the OP which was inclusive of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards the excess amount recovered by way of interest,  with 15 percent per annum interest till the date of filing of the complaint, Rs. 1,500/- as notice charges and Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment.

4. The OP HDFC Ltd resisted the complaint by filing its written version  in brief as under

1. The OP denied all the adverse allegations of the complainant. The OP has specifically submitted in its written version/reply that it is not its duty to provide the information in respect of the variation in  Spread and applicable RPLR. However whenever asked by the complainant, the OP has provided the information in that respect to the complainant.
2. As the repayment of loan could not have been completed within the agreed monthly installments due to the change in RPLR and Spread, the  complainant got Conversion of the loan account and executed an agreement. The complainant maintained the amount of monthly installment. However the period of repayment was extended. The complainant was explained in detail about the same by the office of the OP.
3. The complainant was appropriately charged  interest as per RPLR and  Spread according to terms and conditions of the agreement. The OP therefore denied to have rendered any deficiency in service and sought for dismissal of the complaint.

5. The learned District Forum after hearing both the sides and considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, partly allowed the complaint as aforesaid. The learned  District  Forum has specifically held that the OP has submitted that the RPLR and the Spread is fixed by it and the complainant is liable to pay the interest as charged by the OP. However it is necessary that the complainant should be aware of the variation  in the RPLR and Spread. The complainant for the first time came to know about the variation and applicable interest  at the time of conversion availed by the complainant. The OP has expressed its inability to furnish the information about the change in RPLR and Spread even when asked for by the complainant at the time of conversion. The complainant therefore was deprived of the benefit of the change in the spread percentage from February 2005 to April 2013. The Forum therefore held that the OP has rendered deficiency in service and partly allowed the complaint as above.
6. The OP being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, preferred this appeal and challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that  the Forum while allowing the consumer complaint has issued directions to provide benefits of the effect of the Spread to the respondent from the year 2004 to 2013 which is  unsustainable in law as the Forum failed to consider the question of limitation involved therein & the impugned order is passed in contravention to the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7.  We heard counsels for both the sides and perused the written notes of arguments filed by both the parties. We also perused copies of the complaint, written version and documents filed on record.
8. The fact in respect of the loan being availed by the respondent at floating rate of interest is not disputed. The issue that survives for our consideration is whether the appellant has rendered deficiency in service by not informing the respondent about the variation in RPLR and Spread percentage and the net chargeable interest on the loan amount.
9. The clause No. 1.1 (h) of loan agreement shows interest rate is to be announced by respondent on the loan of borrower pursuant to loan agreement. The perusal of the copy of the loan agreement also  reflects condition No. 2.6 (f) as “ HDFC may vary its Retail Prime Lending Rate
   (RPLR) from time to time in such manner including as to the loan amounts as HDFC may deem fit in its own discretion.”  The clause No. 1.1 (j) of loan agreement  also shows that expression “ Retail Prime Lending Rate” or RPLR means interest rate announced by HDFC from time to time as its Retail Prime Lending Rate.
10. The only inference that can be drawn is that since variation is  not subjected to any statutory guidelines or rule it requires that the borrower be duly informed about the variation. The appellant has admittedly not informed about the variation to the respondent which finds support in the letter dated 22/5/2013 addressed to the respondent by the appellant whereby the appellant had admitted that it cannot furnish the information in respect of the variation in RPLR for the period from February 2005 to April 2013. The appellant has also nowhere pleaded nor proved by cogent evidence that the borrower/respondent was assigned the benefit of the variation in Spread percentage and RPLR. Hence appellant rendered deficient service to the respondent herein.
11. For the foregoing reason, we find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and the appeal deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits. In the result, we pass the following order.

ORDER

1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The impugned order dated 9/7/2014, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Akola is consumer complaint bearing No. 178/2013 is confirmed.
3. No  order as to cost in appeal.
4. Copy of the order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.