Delhi

New Delhi

CC/646/2013

Ajay Kumar Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. LIC Hosing Finance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

08 Sep 2022

ORDER

 

 

 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

(NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

Case No.CC.646/2013                               

In the matter of:

 

1. Sh. Ajay Kumar Gupta

S/o Sh. V.P.Gupta

 

2. Smt. Ratnam Gupta

W/o Sh. Ajay Kumar Gupta

 

Both R/o E-1/6, Krishna Nagar,

Delhi -110051                                                  ……..COMPLAINANTS

 

Versus

 

1. The Regional Manager (North)

L.I.C. HF Limited

2^nd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building

10, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001

 

2. The Manager

L.I.C. HF Limited (Area Office)

B-191, Lohia Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P.                                       ..........RESPONDENT

 

 

Quorum:

Ms. Poonam Chaudhry, President

          Shri Bariq Ahmad , Member

           

                                                                                                             Dated of Institution :    17.03.2009                                                                                                                                                                  Date of Order :                 08.09.2022

 

O R D E R

POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

1. The present complaint has been filed under Section12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short CP Act) alleging deficiency of service against opposite parties/respondents (in short OP). It is stated that complainant applied for housing loan with OP-2 under special concessional rate of interest for the flat allotted by the D.D.A. at Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. The complainants filed all the necessary documents along with Rs. 1,122/- (Rupees One Thousand One Hundred Twenty Two) as upfront fee. After due process loan of Rs. 9,50,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Fifty Thousand) was sanctioned to the complainants o the basis of D.D.A’s allotment-cum-demand letter dated 19.01.07 according to which last date for payment with penal interest was given as 18.07.2007. Intimation of sanction was sent to the complainants by OP-2 vide letter dated 11.04.2007 with agreed upon special concessional rate of interest as 8.75% per annum. Vide said letter dated 11.04.2007 the complainant were assured that the rate of interest will be applicable till scheme is open. The complainants were also informed by D.S.A. that the total processing fee would be Rs. 5,612/- (Rupees Five Thousand Six Hundred Twelve) including the upfront charges of Rs. 1,122/- (Rupees One Thousand One Hundred Twenty Two) already paid and the balance of Rs. 4,500/- (Rupees Four Thousand Five Hundred) would be paid after sanctioning the loan. After issuance of the letter dated 11.04.2007 the complainants completed all the formalities as per the directions of OP. The officials of OP obtained the signature of the complainants on some blank papers on the pretext that it was routine formality and the complainants were advised to collect the cheque on 19.05.2007. The complainants accordingly visited the office of the OP but the OP failed to handover the cheque of loan amount to the complainants and the complainants were told by one Mr. Sharma that the special concessional scheme is over and since the rate of interest has been increased from 01.04.2007 hence the complainants have to pay interest @ 11.25% p.a. The complainant requested OP to release the loan as per the terms and conditions mentioned in letter dated 11.04.2007. It is alleged that after persuasion the loan amount was released to the complainants and the loan account number was informed to the complainants only on 27.06.2007. The complainant no. 2 sent an e-mail dated 03.07.2007 to OP-2 and lodged protest but no reply was given by OP inspite of numerous reminders. Complainant seeks direction to OP to charge interest @ 8.75 % instead of 11.25 % along with compensation on account of mental agony and harassment.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to OP. OP No-1 and 2 filed written statement, contesting the case stating inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was also alleged that the complainant had not come with clean hands and has concealed the real facts.
3. It was also stated that complainant had approached respondent no. 2 for housing loan but it was denied that there was any concessional rates offered to the complainant. It was alleged that in fact the rate offered to the complainants were the rates prevailing at the relevant time.
4. It was also stated that approval letter dated 11.04.2007 for housing loan of Rs. 9,50,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Fifty Thousand) was approved in favour of complainants vide said letter rate of interest was 8.75% p.a. or at the rate prevailing at the time of disbursement. It was also stated that complainants had to make initial deposite of 18,89,529/-(Rupees Eighteen Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Nine) to DDA to purchase the flat in question. As per the sanction letter dated 11.04.2007 the sanctioned amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Fifty Thousand) was to be disbursed after complainants arranged the initial deposit. But the complainant failed to arrange the initial deposit as such the sanction letter dated 11.04.2007 became null and void as per the condition of the sanction letter. It was further alleged that after about more than a month complainants again applied OP no. -2 and explained the delay which was due to time taken for arranging the loan. Thereafter a new sanction letter dated 19.05.2007 was issued for housing loan of Rs. 9,50,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Fifty Thousand) at the rate of interest of 11.25% p.a. The rate of interest at the time of issuance of letter dated 19.05.2007 was 11.25% p.a. It was alleged that after receiving the housing loan complainants made false allegations against OPs.
5. Both parties filed their evidence by affidavits and written arguments.
6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for parties and perused the record.
7. We are of the view that complainants have proved that OP sanctioned loan vide letter dated 11.04.2007 under the special concessional rate of interest of 8.75% p.a. We also agree with the contentions of complainants that both parties were bound by the terms and conditioned mentioned in the loan sanction letter dated 11.04.2007 and OP could not have changed the rate of interest. It was also submitted by complainants that with reference to loan sanction letter dated 19.05.2007 signature of complainants were obtained on some blank papers.
8. We further agree with the contentions of complainants that in case the scheme of special concessional was closed in that case why was the loan sanctioned to complainants under the said scheme vide letter dated 19.05.2007.
9. It is to be noted that OP has not filed any notification of RBI (Reserve Bank of India) regarding the guidelines relating to special rate of interest applicable at the time of issuance of sanction letter dated 19.05.2007.
10. It is the case of complainant that OP indulged in unfair trade practice and charged higher rate of interest which was arbitrarily. It is no doubt correct that the complainants had signed the loan sanctioned letter 19.05.2007, but no guidelines of RBI regarding the rate of interest applicable under special concessional scheme as on 19.05.2007 were filed by OP, nor did OP file any document to show that scheme of special concessional interest stood closed on the date of issuance of sanction letter dated 19.05.2022.
11. It is to be noted that OP-1 and 2 had taken an objection in their arguments that the complaint was not maintainable. As regards the said objections we are of the view that no evidence was brought on record by OP to prove the same, as such we reject the same as being without merits. It is also to be noted that in the written submission, it was alleged that complainant had not impleaded LIC housing finance Ltd. as an OP but had impleaded the Regional Manager LIC and Manger LIC as respondents. But no such objection has been taken in the written statement, hence the same is rejected.
12.  It is an admitted case of OP No.-1 and 2 that complainants approached respondents for housing loan and respondents approved housing loan vide letter dated 11.04.2007 at rate of interest 8.75% p.a. or as prevailing at the time of disbursement. Thus as OP-1 and 2 had sanctioned loan vide letter dated 11.04.2007 at the rate of interest of 8.75% p.a., under the special concessional scheme thereafter OPs were not entitled to charge interest @

11.25% at the time of issuance of sanction of loan vide letter dated 19.05.2007 as it was not proved by OPs that the said scheme was closed. Moreover in case the special concessional scheme under which complainant applied was closed, in that case why was the second sanction letter dated 19.05.2007 issued under the scheme of special concessional rates.

13. We accordingly hold OP No.-1 and 2 jointly and severally liable and further hold that they indulged in unfair trade practices and are guilty of deficiency of services. We accordingly direct OP-1 and 2 to revise the rate of interest from 11.25% p.a. to 8.75% p.a. and issue a revised payment schedule with rate of interest as 8.75% p.a. OP-1 and 2 are also directed to adjust the excessive amount charged through EMIs. We also directs OP No.-1 and 2 and to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as cost of litigation. OP-1 and 2 to comply within 4 weeks of receipt of copy of the order, failing which OP-1 and 2 will be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the excessive amount charged.

A copy of the order be given to all parties free of cost.

File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of the order.

 

 

POONAM CHAUDHRY

                                                                                                   PRESIDENT

 

 

BARIQ AHMAD​

                                                                                                  MEMBER