HDFC LIMITED HEAD OFFICE Vs. NEETU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 08.04.2008, passed by the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred as 'the State Commission') in FA No. 29/2007, HDFC Ltd. & Ors. vs. Mrs. Neetu Singh & Ors., vide which, while partly allowing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar dated 02.01.2007, allowing the consumer complaint

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainants Mrs. Neetu Singh and Ram Avtar Singh obtained a housing loan of Rs. 7 lakhs in January, 2000 from the HDFC Limited, Munirka, Outer Ring Road, New Delhi (herein after referred as HDFC) at a fixed interest rate of 13.5%, for the purpose of purchasing a residential house. It has been stated that after some time, the interest rates of such loans got substantially reduced due to introduction of scheme of adjustable interest rates. The complainants got their housing loan converted into a loan with adjustable rate from fixed rate, after paying a conversion fee of Rs. 2860 on 23.04.2002 and Rs. 1,000/- on 22.04.2002. The interest rates got reduced further, but as alleged by the complainants, the opposite party did not give them the benefit of further reduction in the interest rates. The complainants filed the consumer complaint in question, which was allowed by the District Forum vide their order dated 03.01.2007, according to which, the opposite party/petitioner was directed to return the amount of additional interest i.e. Rs. 99,720/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum i.e. Rs. 22,437/- and a further amount of Rs. 12,689/- taken by them under various heads, besides litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000/-. In this way, the opposite parties were directed to refund an amount of Rs. 1,34,846/- to the complainant within one month from the date of the order. An appeal was filed against this order before the State Commission, which was partly allowed by order dated 08.04.2008, according to which, the order of the District Forum was modified, and the opposite parties were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 99,720/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 09.11.2004, i.e. the date of filing the complaint till realisation and a litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/-. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.

(3.) At the time of hearing before us, learned counsel for the petitioner HDFC stated that loan agreement had been entered into between the complainants and the opposite party on 08.01.2000, according to which, the rate of interest was fixed at 13.5% per annum. The due date of payment of first EMI was 29.02.2000. AS per this agreement, a loan of Rs. 6 lakhs was advanced to the complainants; however, an application was filed by the complainants on 22.04.2002, requesting for payment of further one lakh as loan and also to convert the loan agreement to variable mode of interest and to reschedule the EMIs. On 23.04.2002, an amount of Rs. 2,860 was paid in cash towards administrative fees for processing the above request. A supplemental loan agreement for Adjustable Rates Home Loans was then entered between the parties, in which it was stated as follows:-