State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Iifl Home Finance Limited vs Shiv Shankar on 29 November, 2024
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UT CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. A/148/2024 ( Date of Filing : 09 Apr 2024 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. CC/802/2022 of District DF-I) 1. M/S IIFL HOME FINANCE LIMITED IIFL HOUSE SUN INFOTECH PARK, ROAD NO. 16V, PLOT NO. B-23 MIDC, THANE INDUSTRIAL AREA, WAGLE ESTATE THANE THANE MAHARASHTRA 2. M/S IIFL HOME FINANCE LTD SCO NO. 2907-298, SECTOR 22C CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SHIV SHANKAR HOUSE NO. 713, GURU NANAK COLONY, SECTOR 65-B, VILLAGE JAGATPURA, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI, S.A.S Nagar PUNJAB 2. MRS. LALTI DEVI HOUSE NO. 713, GURU NANAK COLONY, SECTOR 65-B, VILLAGE JAGATPURA, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI S.A.S Nagar PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. PADMA PANDEY PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. PREETINDER SINGH MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 29 Nov 2024 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (Additional Bench) Appeal No. : 148 of 2024 Date of Institution : 10.04.2024 Date of Decision : 29.11.2024 M/s IIFL Home Finance Limited having its Registered office at IIFL House Sun Infotech Park, Road No.16V, Plot No.B-23 MIDC, Thane Industrial Area, Wagle Estate Thane 400604 Through its Authorised Officer Paramjit Singh. M/s IIFL Home Finance Ltd. SCO No.2907-2908, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh-160022 through its Authorized Officer Paramjit Singh. ...Appellants V e r s u s Shiv Shanker, aged about 50 years son of Sh.Inder Pal. Mrs.Lalti Devi, aged about 48 years, wife of Sh.Shiv Shanker, Both residents of House No.713, Guru Nanak Colony, Sector 65-B, Village Jagatpura, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab. ...Respondents Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 14.02.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.802/2022. BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
MR.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER For the appellants : Sh. Vineet Sehgal, Advocate For the respondents : Sh.Ajit Singh, Advocate.
PER PADMA PANDEY,PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.02.2024, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as "the Ld. Lower Commission"), vide which, it partly allowed the complaint bearing No.CC/802/2022 by directing the Opposite Parties as under ;
to refund an amount of ₹24,801/- (₹31,108-₹6307) extra charged towards processing charges to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint onwards.
to pay an amount of ₹50,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them.
to pay ₹7500/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.
This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
2. Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the complainants, who are husband and wife, that they came into contact with the representatives of the OP Bank and came under their allurements and assurances. Accordingly request for loan against property was moved by the complainants and requirements of loan were completed by them. They also handed over all the documents for giving them benefits under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna. A sale deed of plot No.45 was duly executed in favour of the complainants and representative of the OP Bank directly disbursed money to the seller on behalf of the complainants. Besides the amount of Rs.5 lacs, the complainants were not disbursed with any other amount till date. Further request was also made to the OPs to disburse the amount of Rs.2.50 lacs as per entitlement of the complainants under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna to which the complainants were legally and lawfully entitled and the bank was also bound to adjust such amount in the principal amount and bound to recalculate the interest portion accordingly. After a number of requests, the complainants were handed over copy of a sanction letter which the OPs have supplied to the complainants in the first week of June, 2022 alongwith statement of account till 31.5.2022 maintained against the loan account of the complainants. The complainants were shocked to peruse the sanction letter as well as statement of account handed over to them as the complainants were never disclosed the factum of chargeable interest @ 15.25.% as mentioned in the sanction letter dated 9.9.2021. The rate of interest was to be levied as per the rate of interest of nationalized bank which even at that time was between 9% to 10% as per the RBI guidelines, but it is very shocking for the complainants when they came to know that the OP bank was charging the rate of interest @ 15.25% on the disbursed amount which as per the complainants was Rs.5 lacs but when the complainants perused the statement of account then they came to know that the OP Bank was charging the interest @ 15.25% on the amount of Rs. 6,30,697/-. After coming to know of such facts by the complainants, the complainants immediately approached the OP Bank and requested them to rectify such exorbitant rate of interest as it is not possible for the complainants to pay such rate of interest which was very huge as compared with the other nationalized Banks against property but the officials of the OP Bank instead of doing the needful, dilly dallied the matter on one pretext or the other. It was further stated that an amount of Rs.87898/- was charged from the complainants against the head of insurance charges which the complainants never agreed to opt, hence such chargeable huge amount of Rs.87898/- was also liable to be adjusted in the sanctioned amount to the complainants. Further no policy document or any other document was supplied to the complainant against such charges and the said fact came to the knowledge of the complainant when they were handed over Statement of Accounts pertaining to their loan account in the first week of June,2022. The complainants visited the office of the OPs and sent letters but no response was received. The complainants then requested for one time settlement after adjusting the overcharged amounts but to no effect. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission.
3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, Opposite Parties appeared before the Ld. Lower Commission and contested the consumer complaint. In their reply, it was stated that as per the request of the complainants/borrowers, an amount of Rs.6,30,697/- was disbursed to them and the said loan amount was to be repaid in 240 monthly installments of Rs.8,325/- at floating rate of interest of 15.25%. The borrowers for securing the loan amount, also mortgaged their property bearing Plot No.45, Modren Complex 1, Dapper MC, Lalru, Derabassi, Punjab-140506 with the OP Bank. The said property was not entitled for any subsidy under the relevant scheme. The complainants were made aware of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and after duly understanding the contents of the same, the said loan agreement was signed and executed by them out of their own free Will. Similarly, at the time of availing the loan facility from the respondents, the complainants had duly accepted to opt for the insurance policy to secure their lives and for this purpose had duly accepted and signed the request and acceptance of insurance policy letter dated 9.9.2021. Since, the property in question of the complainants was not under the approved list of PMAY Scheme, hence the complainants were not entitled for the subsidy available under PMAY scheme. It was pleaded that the complainants were free to foreclose the loan account subject to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. It was further pleaded that there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
4. On appraisal of the complaint, and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission allowed the Complaint of the respondents/ Complainants partly, as noticed in the opening para of this order.
5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties
6. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.
7. The main ground put forth by the appellants is that the Learned District Commission while deciding the complaint and passing the impugned order has ordered refund of a part of processing fee when there is no prayer much less averment in that regard in the complaint and come up with a novel formula which is unknown/unheard in the industry, which concludes that 1% of the disbursed amount is a reasonable processing charges to be charged by the financial institutions but the said formula cannot be applied to the loans of higher value. Further the appellants have deposited GST @18% at the appropriate time with the Government, therefore, the refund of the statutory tax amount already deposited by them under the head of GST could not have been ordered. There are no reasons or basis recorded in the order for grant of huge compensation of Rs.50,000/-. It was further contended that all the acts and duties were performed by the appellants as per the guidelines issued to them from time to time by the controlling authorities constituted under a statute. On the other hand, Counsel for the respondents contended that the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission is quite just & reasonable and does not call for any interference.
8. The respondents/complainants were sanctioned financial facility aggregating to Rs.11,87,898/-, however, an amount of Rs.6,30,697/- was disbursed to them. For securing the loan amount, property of the respondents was mortgaged. It is the case of the appellants that the said loan/finance facility was advanced on a floating rate of interest @15.25% per annum i.e. 14.75% Home Loans Prime Lending Rate +0.50% (Margin) linked to the IIFL HFL and the base interest rate announced by the appellant company from time to time as its retail home loan prime lending rate and it varies from different borrowers on account of various parameters such as credit score, borrower profile, loan amount, property type etc. It is admitted case of appellants that processing fee @1.75% was charged on the loan amount of Rs.11,87,898/- alognwith collateral evaluation charges of Rs.5600/-. Thus, total processing fee charged was Rs.31,138/- which included GST charges @ 18%. However, the appellants have not produced on record any document according to which they charged such amount of processing fee on the entire loan amount whereas only Rs.6,30,697/- was disbursed, out of which insurances charges were deducted. The Learned District Commission, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, rightly directed the appellants to charge only 1% of the loan amount of Rs.6,30,697/- which was actually disbursed, by observing as under ;
" On perusal of complaint, it is also observed that the OPs have charged an exorbitant amount of Rs.31,108.08 towards processing charges for the said loan. The OPs have not adduced any guidelines with regard to charges of processing fee. In our view the amount charged as processing fee is very high, which have caused a lot of mental agony & harassment to the complainants. In our view the OPs should have charged only 1% of the loan amount actually disbursed against processing charges i.e., Rs.6307 (1% of Rs.6,30,697/- which should have been reasonable"
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission is based on correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point and does not suffer from illegality and perversity warranting any interference of this Commission.
10. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit, with no order as to costs. The order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.
11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.
12. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
13.. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
[HON'BLE MRS. PADMA PANDEY] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. PREETINDER SINGH] MEMBER