Himatsinh Narayanrao Shinde vs BRANCH MANAGER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

THIS revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 14.08.2013, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission '') in FA No. A/10/868, ''''Dr. Himatsingh Narayanrao Shinde versus LIC Housing Finance Co. Ltd. '''', vide which while dismissing appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur on 20.07.2010 in consumer complaint no. CC/10/30, dismissing the complaint, was upheld. This petition has been filed against the impugned order as second appeal, but it is being heard as revision petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because there is no provision for second appeal in the Act.

THE facts of the case, as stated in the complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant are that he obtained a loan of Rs.11,90,000/ - on 14.07.2005 from the respondent/OP for construction of a house at E/1133, Sykes Extension, Kolhapur. The loan was obtained at floating rate of interest and its repayment term was for 20 years and the EMI (equated monthly instalment) was Rs.9,627/ - per month. The rate of interest at the time of taking loan was 7.5% and an agreement was also executed between the parties. However, later on, due to increase in rate of interest, the liquidation date of the loan was extended by the OP unilaterally upto 1.07.2030. The complainant says that he instructed the OP that if the rate of interest increases in future, the amount of EMI should be increased and not the date of repayment of loan. The complainant says that still on 27.07.2007, he found that the EMI had been kept at Rs.9627/ - per month, out of which the component of repayment of principal was very small, i.e., Rs.193/ - per month. The complainant sent a letter to the OP, saying that the repayment of loan should be rescheduled so that the entire amount could be returned within a period of 10 years and correspondingly, the amount of EMI may be increased. It has been stated that another agreement was executed between the parties, saying that the repayment term shall be kept constant at 10 years. According to the complainant, the OP did not keep its promise of keeping the repayment period upto 10 years, and hence committed breach of agreement dated 26.07.2007. The consumer complaint was filed by the petitioner/complainant claiming refund of Rs.3,53,710/ -, the amount that he had paid in the shape of EMIs till date and also a compensation of Rs.5 lakh was demanded. The complainant also transferred his house loan to the Axis Bank, Kolhapur and as per his version, he incurred a sum of Rs.35,000/ - for the transfer of the loan and requested that the said amount may also be recovered from the OPs. The District Forum vide their order dated 20.07.2010, dismissed the complaint, saying that no deficiency in service had been committed by the OP. An appeal filed against this order was dismissed by the State Commission, observing that the petitioner had not produced any evidence to support his allegations that he was ever put under duress or he had to pay extra money as repayment of loan or had been over -charged by the OP. The State Commission also observed that it seems to be a case of mis -understanding between the parties, because the change of rate of interest, the quantum of EMI of the repayment schedule was likely to change. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. At the time of hearing before us, the petitioner himself argued the case, reiterating the grounds mentioned in the complaint and the revision petition. He vehemently argued that the OP had committed a grave deficiency in service towards him and had violated the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. He was, therefore, forced to transfer his loan account to the Axis Bank, for which he had to incur an extra expenditure of Rs.35,000/ -.

WE have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. It is a fact admitted between the parties that a loan of Rs.11.9 lakh was advanced to the petitioner by the OP at floating rate of interest. It is clear, therefore, that whenever there is a change in the interest rate, the amount of EMI and the repayment schedule are likely to change. In case, the loanee desires to make repayment of loan earlier, he has to enter into an understanding to this fact with the lending institution. In any case, the accounts maintained by any lending institution are supposed to present a clear picture about the recovery amount and the outstanding amount on a given date and the rate of interest charged from a loanee for a particular period. In the present case, it seems to be a case of plain misunderstanding between the petitioner and the loanee institution about the quantum and schedule of repayment of the loan amount. The petitioner has not been able to show anywhere that the OP has charged any extra / excessive amount form him which was not permissible under rules. It is a general proposition that in the earlier instalments of EMI, the quantum of interest being paid is more and the amount of principal being repaid is very small. With the passage of time, the proportion of principal being returned goes on increasing. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to show how the OP has been found wanting in providing the requisite service to him. Further, it has come on record that the petitioner has already shifted his loan account to the Axis Bank. In so far as the extra money spent in shifting of loan is concerned, the OPs cannot be held accountable for reimbursement of the same as the account has been shifted by the petitioner himself at his free will.

FROM the above discussion, it is very clear that the petitioner has not been able to prove by any means that the OP has committed deficiency in service or has done anything wrong to him. We, therefore, do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission. The present revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the orders passed by the Fora below are upheld with no order as to costs.