LAWS(NCD)-2015-2-127

AND ORS. Vs. RELIANCE CAPITAL LTD. AND ORS.

Decided On February 13, 2015
And Ors. Appellant
V/S
Reliance Capital Ltd. And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.5.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 50 of 2011, M/s. Reliance Capital Ltd. & Anr. v. Vikas Jain & Ors., by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Complainants /Petitioners applied for the housing loan to the opposite parties/ respondents. It was stated that the opposite parties sanctioned loan of Rs. 2,37,00,000 to the complainants, for the purchase of H.No.28, Sector 7, Panchkula. The loan was granted on floating rate of interest of 11.90% per annum. It was further stated that the loan was to be repaid in 204 equated monthly instalments (EMIs). It was agreed between the parties that the opposite parties shall take over the vehicle loan of BMW Car, obtained by the complainants from ICICI Bank. At the time of finalization of the loan, it was also agreed between the parties, that the opposite parties would charge 2.35% less interest, than the prevailing PLR (Prime Lending Rate). It was further agreed that, in case of foreclosure of loan account, no foreclosure charges would be charged. The complainants had issued post-dated and un-dated cheques, to the opposite parties against the said disbursed loan. Thereafter, the complainants requested the opposite parties, many times, to take over the BMW Car loan and to increase the loan from Rs. 2.37 crores to Rs. 3.00 crores, and also reduce interest rate to 9.75% p.a., but they did not comply with their request. It was further stated that thereafter the complainants shifted their loan from the opposite parties, to AXIS Bank, which agreed to grant the same to them at interest @ 9.75% p.a. The complainants, thereafter, requested the opposite parties to close the loan account, and release the conveyance deed of the plot. It was further stated that on foreclosing the loan, the opposite parties illegally charged Rs. 11,70,829 as foreclosure charges @ 5% of the loan amount. The complainants had to pay the foreclosure charges under compulsion. The complainants then requested the opposite parties to refund this amount, since it had been illegally charged which was not refunded. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP/Respondentresisted complaint and submitted that the loan granted to the complainants was on floating rate of interest and as per the loan agreement, in case of cancellation of loan, within one year, the opposite parties could claim foreclosure charges, from the complainants/loanees. It was further stated that there was no agreement, between them, and the complainants, to take over the auto loan as alleged by complainants. It was further stated that that as per the loan agreements, floating rate of interest and the PLR were to be decided by the lender. It was further stated that as per sanction letter, the PLR of the opposite party was 14.25%, hence the complainants were required to pay interest at 11.90% p.a. which was 2.35% less than the PLR as per the terms of the agreement. Since the complainants got the loan accountclosed within 12 months from the date of sanction of the loan, the foreclosure charges, were charged accordingly and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned DistrictForum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs. 11,70,830 and further directed to pay Rs. 20,000 as penalty and Rs. 5,500 as litigation expenses. OP filed appeal along with application for condonation of delay before State Commission and learned State Commission vide separate order on the same day condoned delay and vide impugned order allowed appeal and set aside order of District Forum against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay of 3 days.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.