Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited vs Dilip Goyal

Sudip Ahluwalia, Member

This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 against the Respondent/Complainant challenging the impugned Order dated 02.11.2020 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 dated 03.12.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alwar, Rajasthan, in Complaint No. 683 of 2014.

The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had taken a loan of Rs.23,10,361/- from the Opposite Parties vide Loan Account No. HLAPLAW00115343 which was to be repaid in 120 monthly instalments of Rs.35,872/- from 01.09.2012. It was the case of the Complainant that he had started depositing the instalments and had further paid Rs.5,50,000/- on 05.06.2013 and had also shown his willingness to repay the entire outstanding loan amount on 25.09.2013. 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/- and also a monthly instalment of Rs.2,993/- till the time permission is granted. Consequently, the Complainant had deposited 15,50,000/- on 25.09.2013. 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/-, and further were not accepting the differential loan amount. Therefore, the Complainant issued a Legal Notice dated 26.02.2014 on the Opposite Parties and again on 10.04.2014 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 25.09.2013; and to pay Compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.3,000/- as litigation costs.

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 dated 29.10.2013 requesting the Opposite Parties to reduce the EMI for about Rs.3,000/- which made it clear that the Complainant gave no letter on 25.09.2013. Therefore, the Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the Complaint with costs.

The Ld. District Forum vide order dated 03.12.2019 had allowed the Complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.82,475/- collected as foreclosure charges along with interest from 27.09.2013 on the same rate on which the Opposite Parties charged the interest on the loan amount and to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and litigation costs while observing inter alia:

“7. On the basis of our aforesaid observations from the own admission of the opposite parties, it stands proved that the complainant had taken Housing Loan from the opposite parties. We have perused the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. As per the order dated 05.06.2012 of the Reserve Bank of India, letter dated 18.10.2010 and 19.10.2011 of National Housing Bank, it has been very clearly mentioned "if any consumer deposits the Housing Loan before time, then no additional interest or penalty shall be charged". The opposite parties in their reply to the complaint and during arguments themselves admitted that if the Housing Loan is deposited before time, there is no provision for charging penalty or additional interest. In this way, the opposite parties are not entitled to charge any pre-payment charge from the complainant. The opposite parties have issued notice to the complainant for the aforesaid amount of Rs.82,475/- and as per the statement, the opposite also collected a sum of Rs.82,475/- on 27.09.2013 from the complainant towards pre-payment charges which is illegal and is a deficiency in service on their part. In these circumstances, the opposite parties are liable to be directed to return the aforesaid amount along with interest to the complainant. Therefore, the instant complaint of the complainant is liable to be allowed.”

Aggrieved by the above Order, First Appeal bearing No. 04 of 2020 was filed by Appellants/ Opposite Parties against the Respondent/ Complainant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur. The Ld. State Commission vide the impugned Order dated 02.11.2020 had dismissed the Appeal while upholding the Order of Ld. District Forum as the order required no interference.

Hence, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Opposite Party No.1 against the above-mentioned impugned order of the Ld. State Commission.

Vide Order dated 16.04.2021, the operation of order of District Forum was stayed subject to deposit of entire decretal amount. Affidavits in compliance of order dated 26.04.2023 have been filed by the parties.

The submission raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that both the Ld. Fora below had come to an erroneous conclusion that the loan taken by the Respondent/Complainant was a “Housing Loan” and not a loan “taken for business purpose”, even though the loan sanctioning letter dated 28.6.2012 had explicitly described it to be so.

On the other hand, the sum and substance of the assertions raised on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant which have also been highlighted in their Written Submissions is that this aspect cannot be taken into consideration by this Commission in its revisional jurisdiction, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sunil Kumar Maity  Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 77”.

Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has however, contended that merely because these findings are concurrent, would not ipso facto have the effect of making the same unimpeachable if they are otherwise in contradiction of the available material on record, and in such a situation would have to be regarded as perverse, and returning such perverse findings by the lower Fora would certainly constitute an exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with immaterial irregularity.

To substantiate this submission, it has been stressed on behalf of the Petitioner that according to the own pleadings of Complainant there was never a specific case in the original complaint that the loan in question was a “Housing Loan”, and in any case no evidence whatsoever was led on behalf of the Complainant by way of any deposition in support of the complaint, and much less to the effect that the loan in question was a housing loan.  The Ld. District Forum nevertheless accepted this contention raised on behalf of the Complainant by relying on certain material which was never directly pleaded in the proceedings before the Forum, and had been placed on record at a stage when even the evidence on behalf of the Petitioners/ Opposite Parties had already been completed, and the matter was listed for final arguments, on account of which the Petitioner was denied a fair opportunity of making its own submissions qua such material not forming part of the pleadings or evidence having being tendered at the last stage before the District Forum.

Taking notice of such submission raised on behalf of the Petitioner, this Commission on 13.10.2022 directed summoning of original record of the District Forum to verify whether the documents quoted by the Ld. District Forum in its impugned Order also upheld by the State Commission were actually placed at a belated stage, and were part of the original pleadings or not.  The original record has since been received and perused carefully.  The submission raised on behalf of the Petitioner is found to be correct.  It is a matter of record that in the entire complaint filed in the year 2014, there was never any mention anywhere that the loan in question taken by the Complainant was a “Housing Loan”.  It is also verified that no Affidavit in Evidence had been filed from the side of the Complainant at all, although the Petitioner/Opposite party from its side had raised a specific plea in its Written Statement that the loan was obtained by the Complainant for “business purpose” on account of which foreclosure charges would have applied to the same.  Furthermore from the side of the Petitioner/Opposite Party even an Affidavit in Evidence was filed by its Authorised Representative, Shri Ravi Kumar Choubey to deny the contentions of the Complainant on oath.

But the copy of the Legal Notice issued on behalf of the Petitioner/Opposite Party by its Advocate, Shri Manmohan Krishan Dang, to Smt. Neeru Goyal who happens to be a co-applicant and guarantor for the loan, as also the copy of the complaint filed on behalf of the Petitioner in the Court of Shri Amandeep , Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gurugram, in which the same loan was described as “Housing Loan” were actually placed on record at a very belated stage on 11.4.2018, which was long after evidence from the Petitioner’s side had already been closed.

Now, the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that the description of the loan as a “Housing Loan” in the aforesaid Legal Notice dated 22.11.2017 as also the complaint file in the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate which was registered as Criminal Complaint No. 183 of 2018 under Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, was an instance of pure mistake/oversight on the part of the Ld. Counsel, Shri M.K. Dang who had drafted the complaint and had also issued the Notice prior to its institution.  It is also contended that such mistake on the part of the Advocate is palpable considering that the loan documents placed on record in the case, and which were issued many years earlier in the year 2014, had clearly described the loan as being for “business purpose”.   Attention  in  this  regard has been drawn to the loan Application Form signed by the Complainants and the Co-applicant, Smt. Neeru Goyal, who happens to be the wife of the Complainant himself, which goes to show that it was a loan for property purchase as seen from the mark in the specified column for that purpose at the top of the concerned page of the Form.  The End-Use Undertaking given by the Complainant and his wife/co-applicant which was apparently Exhibit-2 from the side of the Petitioner also goes to show that the loan was classified for the purpose of “Business Expansion/Working Capital”.  Thereafter the loan Sanction Letter dated 28.6.2012 which was marked Exhibit 3 also clearly specified that the purpose of loan was ‘BUSINESS NEEDS”.  Further, in the Loan Agreement itself it had been mentioned that the term “purpose” for which the loan has been availed/agreed to be availed would be the one as specified in the Sanction Letter/End-Use Letter/Application Form itself.  All these documents would therefore certainly go to indicate that the loan in question was actually for “business purpose” as had been explicitly mentioned/indicated in the aforesaid documents, and in the given circumstances the reference to the same by the Petitioner’s Advocate in his subsequent Legal Notice dated 22.11.2017 which was more than three years after the Consumer Complaint had already been filed, or in the Criminal Complaint similarly filed almost four years later in the year 2018 was apparently an instance of over-sight and not consistent with the actual documents pertaining to the loan, which were executed at the time of its original application and sanctioning.

In view of the aforesaid noted reasons, this Commission is of the opinion that the Ld. Fora below had both acted with material irregularity in relying upon such documents which were issued long after the complaint was filed and at a stage when the evidence from the Opposite Party had also been closed long ago and the documents themselves were never a part of the original pleadings and were infact issued at a much later stage in relation to entirely different kind of proceedings in a Criminal Court, when it was never the own pleading or the case of the Complainant in his complaint that the loan in question was “Housing Loan” and not for “business purpose”.

On the other hand, the Complainant appears to have cleverly tried to avoid the consequences of contents of the loan related documents which indicated the said loan to be for “business purpose” by suggesting in his complaint that he had been persuaded to sign on the Loan Application Form/blank papers although he wanted legal assistance from his Advocate.  However, under persuasion, he and his wife signed on the Loan Agreement/other documents, thereby seeking to suggest that he had somehow been tricked into signing such documents in which the nature of loan was possibly wrongly described as “business purpose”.

But this submission would not appear to be convincing since a party cannot be permitted to avoid the contents of the documents signed by himself as there is always a presumption that he had signed thereupon after properly understanding the contents.  In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited & Anr.  Vs. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod, (2019) 6 SCC 17”; had similarly rejected the argument that a signatory to a document was absolved of its consequences as he was unaware of the contents of the Form which he was required to fill up.  The relevant extracts from the Order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in this case are set out as below –

“34. We are not impressed with the submission that the proposer was unaware of the contents of the form that he was required to fill up or that in assigning such a response to a third party, he was absolved of the consequence of appending his signatures to the proposal.  The proposer duly appended his signature to the proposal form and the grant of the insurance cover was on the basis of the statements contained in the proposal form……”.

Consequently, this Commission is of the opinion that the impugned Orders of both the Ld. Fora below are untenable and liable to be set aside.

The Revision Petition is, therefore, allowed after setting aside the Impugned Order of the Ld. State Commission.  Resultantly, the original complaint filed on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant also stands dismissed.  Parties to bear their own costs.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.