INDIABULLS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED Vs. DILIP GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 against the Respondent/Complainant challenging the impugned Order dtd. 2/11/2020 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, in First Appeal bearing No. 04 of 2020. Vide such Order, the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal while upholding the Order dtd. 3/12/2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alwar, Rajasthan, in Complaint No. 683 of 2014.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had taken a loan of Rs.23,10,361.00 from the Opposite Parties vide Loan Account No. HLAPLAW00115343 which was to be repaid in 120 monthly instalments of Rs.35,872.00 from 1/9/2012. It was the case of the Complainant that he had started depositing the instalments and had further paid Rs.5,50,000.00 on 5/6/2013 and had also shown his willingness to repay the entire outstanding loan amount on 25/9/2013. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties had informed the Complainant that the permission is to be taken from the Head Office for repayment of loan for which the Complainant's signatures were obtained on blank papers and he was asked to deposit Rs.15,50,000.00 and also a monthly instalment of Rs.2,993.00 till the time permission is granted. Consequently, the Complainant had deposited 15,50,000/- on 25/9/2013. It was submitted that despite the Complainant"s requests to repay the entire loan amount, the Opposite Parties had been pressurizing the Complainant to pay an additional sum of Rs.1,64,623.00, and further were not accepting the differential loan amount. Therefore, the Complainant issued a Legal Notice dtd. 26/2/2014 on the Opposite Parties and again on 10/4/2014 on the Opposite Party No.2. It was further the case of the Complainant that on receipt of the Legal Notice, the Opposite Parties had informed the Complainant that he had to pay 5% of the loan amount as foreclosure charges if he wanted to pay the remaining loan amount in one-go. However, the Complainant refused to pay the said amount being against the RBI guidelines and consequently, the Opposite Parties refused to accept the balance loan amount. Therefore, the Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum seeking a direction upon the Opposite Parties to accept the remaining loan amount as per the RBI guidelines and not to charge additional 5% of the loan amount as foreclosure charges; to return the interest amount paid beyond 25/9/2013; and to pay Compensation of Rs.20,000.00 and Rs.3,000.00 as litigation costs.

(3.) The Opposite Parties appeared before the Ld. District Forum and resisted the Complaint and denied all the allegations thereby denying deficiency in service on their part. It was contended that the Complainant does not fall within the ambit of 'Consumer"; the loan taken by the Complainant was a Loan against Property and not a Home Loan which was availed for business requirements; that the Complainant had signed the Loan Acceptance Letter which stated that the loan which was taken was a Loan against property and it was specifically mentioned in the loan approval letter that foreclosure charges have to be paid in case of loan against property; that foreclosure charges are not charged only on Home Loans and the foreclosure charges were demanded as per the RBI guidelines. It was also contended that the Complainant had written a letter dtd. 29/10/2013 requesting the Opposite Parties to reduce the EMI for about Rs.3,000.00 which made it clear that the Complainant gave no letter on 25/9/2013. Therefore, the Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the Complaint with costs.