1.     This revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (in short, ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 23 of 2013 dated 16.09.2014 arising out of order dated 03.12.2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur (in short, ‘District Forum’) in Complaint No. 428 of 2011.

2.      Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 08.12.2003 the petitioner had advanced a loan of Rs.8,00,000/- to the respondent to purchase a house at an interest rate of 7.50% per annum to be repaid over 240 monthly installments of Rs.10,215/- each. The petitioner revised the rate progressively on an annual basis to 12.50% on 07.02.2005. According to the petitioner, the interest rates were based upon market conditions and that the rates were based upon the agreed terms and conditions of the loan that was disbursed on adjustable rate of interest as per agreement which allowed variance of +/- 2.25% while charging interest based on market conditions. The petitioner has contended that the respondent did not produce the loan documents before the District Forum and that the order of the lower fora were on the issue of the rate of interest which as per Banking Regulation Act, 1949 under Section 21 (A) & 35 A and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Ors. (2002) 1 SCC 367 was not permissible. The respondent has contended that the rate of interest agreed upon was +/- 2.25% rate of interest and since the  Reserve Bank of India revised the rates only twice during this period, the petitioner bank had acted arbitrarily in revising the rates. It is also argued that the revisions of interest rate was without notice to him and did not give him the opportunity to decide whether to continue or terminate the loan and therefore the petitioner was guilty of both deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.

3.      The respondent had filed consumer complaint no. 428 of 2011 before the District Forum which upheld the same observing as under:

        So, the complaint of the complainant is accepted and the opposite party has been ordered that from the date of this order within 2 months to pay a sum of Rs.88,097.50/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to the complainant from the date of recovery of the said extra interest till realization and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the mental agony and expenses of Rs.50,000/- of the said case.

4.     Aggrieved, the present petitioner had approached the State Commission in Appeal No. 23 of 2013 which was disallowed by the State Commission dated 16.09.2014 holding as below:

      In view of the above said fact and circumstances the appeal of the appellant is partly admitted and the order of the District Consumer Forum is also proved as correct the amount towards the mental harassment and mental agony from the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is made as Rs.50,000/- for the same the appellant is given the time of 30 days.  After obeying the orders and directions of the Consumer District Forum and State Commission, the opposite party should refund the necessary deposited amount and along with all the benefits to the complainant.

This order is impugned before this Commission praying for setting aside of the above order of the State Commission.

5.      I have heard both the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record carefully.

6.      The case of the petitioner is that the State Commission failed to consider the grounds raised by the petitioner bank in its appeal.  It is contended that the various letters written by the petitioner to the respondents regarding change in rate of interest were not taken into consideration by the State Commission. It is further submitted that intimation of said change of rate of interest was also done by Press Releases by the petitioner as per settled trade practice. Clause E of Schedule B of the Loan Agreement allowed variance of +/- 2.25% p.a. of Prime Lending Rate (PLR) and the petitioner had rightfully charged the interest rate as per the terms of the agreement which allowed variation.  As per petitioner, the fora below have erred in not considering the well settled position of law which specifies that courts shall not interfere with the rate of interest charged by bank.  Section 21-A of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 also states that rates of interest charged by banking companies are not to be subject to scrutiny by courts. Reliance has been placed on the order of a coordinate Bench of this Commission in Terex Veetra Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mehar Chand & Ors. in R.P. No. 3736 of 2012 decided on 09.04.2013 that deprecated non-speaking orders to assail the impugned order.

6.      Per contra, on behalf of the respondent it is argued that although the contract mentioned in Schedule B clause (ii) that whenever there is a change in the PLR, it should be publicly notified by a Press Release, however, no Press Release had been notified by the petitioner bank.  It is argued that the right to reset the rate of interest accrued to the petitioner bank only when the revised rate of interest had been notified by the bank.  When the change in the interest has not been notified, the right to reset the interest does not arise. It is therefore requested that the revision petition may kindly be dismissed with heavy cost.

7.      From the foregoing, it is evident that the loan obtained by the respondent was based on the 7.5% rate of interest. Even the respondent admits that the rate was dependent upon the variation of the PLR, as notified. His grievance is that the petitioner bank could have revised it only when the Reserve Bank of India notified the change, which, according to him, happened only twice during the period of the loan. In view of the fact that the loan was on adjustable rate of interest which permitted variance of +/- 2.25% on the rate of interest basis, it is manifest that the lower fora failed to appreciate that the rate of interest on the loan obtained would fluctuate based upon changes in the monetary policy and not necessarily on the basis of variation of rates by the Reserve Bank of India alone. The lower fora have erred in not appreciating this material fact. The orders of the lower fora are therefore liable to be set aside on this ground.

8.      The power of this Commission to review under section 21 of the Act is limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order. Different interpretation of same sets of facts has been held to be not permissible by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. While this Commission, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record when the findings of the lower fora are concurrent on facts, it can interfere with the concurrent findings of the fora below on the grounds that the findings are either perverse or that the fora below have acted without jurisdiction.  Findings can be perverse if they are based on either evidence that have not been produced or based on conjecture or surmises i.e. evidence which are either not part of the record or when material evidence on record is not considered.

9.     From the records it is apparent that the concurrent findings on facts of the fora below are based on evidences led by the parties but ignores the fact that the basis of the rate of interest applicable in this case was to be the PLR +/- 2.75%. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that this material fact was not considered earlier which, if ignored, would make the said order perverse. Neither of the fora below has considered that the terms and conditions of the loan were based upon the PLR of interest.    

10.   I, therefore, find that the impugned order warrants interference of this Commission. The present revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order set aside with no order as to costs.