AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member
This revision petition filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the Punjab State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeals No. 1388 of 2013 and 1346 of 2013 dated 17.10.2013 dismissing the appeal against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhatinda (in short, ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 579 of 2012 dated 17.10.2013.
The brief facts of the case as per the revision petitioner are that the petitioner has been held by the State Commission deficient in embossing the stamp “Sold” on the title deeds of the property mortgaged the petitioner against loans obtained by them from the petitioner and to refund the excess amount of interest charged @ 19% instead of @ 14.75%. It has also directed petitioner to pay the respondents compensation of Rs 35,000/-, to refund the entire stamp value on the sale deeds at the Collector rates. It dismissed FA 1388 of 2013 filed by petitioner and allowed FA 1346 of 2013 filed by the respondent herein. The order of the District Forum was merged with its order by the State Commission.
The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner being a housing finance company had extended two loans to the respondents against property on 07.11.2009for Rs 20,25,000/- (Loan Account No. HLAPBAT00054705) and Rs 5,00,000/- (Loan Account No. HLAPBAT00054667), both to be repaid in 120 installments at a floating rate of interest. The floating rate of interest was 17.75% on the date of execution while the effective rate offered was 14.75%. The loans were against mortgage of property No. 4539, Midhu Mal Street, Chamunda Shopping Complex, Dhobi Bazar, Bhatinda. In view of variation of interest rates due to fluctuations in PLR, the tenure of repayment was changed from 01.09.2010 by the petitioner after notice and thereafter from time to time. The respondents closed the loan accounts by making the full and complete repayment of outstanding amounts by way of foreclosure dated 30.10.2012 whereupon original title documents were returned by the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the respondents filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum in CC 579 of 2012 alleging levy of illegal pre-payment charges and that the original sale deeds bearing No. 10623 and 10624 dated 06.10.2008 and No. 6257 dated 02.12.2009 were stamped “Sold” which is creating an impediment for their sale now.
Both the petitioner and the respondents approached the State Commission in appeals. These appeals were disposed of by way of a common order on 11.06.2015 as below:
Sequel to the above discussions, order of the District Forum Bathinda is modified by holding that complainants are entitled to refund of excess amount of interest charged by OP No.1 @ 19% p.a. instead of 14.75% p.a. from them without giving any notice to them, however, OP No.1 is at liberty to recover the enhanced rate of interest only after giving notice to the complainants and after following the procedure for resetting the interest rate. On the point of defacing the sale deeds by OP No.1 by putting the stamp of sold on them, OP No.1 is directed to refund the entire stamp value of all the above referred spoiled sale deeds to the complainants at the collector rates. The OP No.1 is further directed to pay the compensation of Rs.35,000/- to the complainants for their mental harassment and the order of cost of litigation is not disturbed in the appeal. The order of the District Forum under challenge in the appeal stands modified protanto as recorded above. Consequently, First Appeal No.1388 of 2013 filed by India Bulls Housing Finance Limited stands dismissed and First Appeal No.1346 of 2013 filed by Jagdish Chander and others is accepted by modifying the order of District Forum as recorded above. The order of the District Forum stands merged with the order of this Commission.
The appellants/OPs have deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- & Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. The amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest accrued, if any, be remitted by Registry to the complainants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. The order shall be complied by the OP No.1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which OP No.1 shall pay interest @ 9% p.a. over the due amount payable to complainants by it from the date of filing complaint to actual payment.
The petitioner has impugned this order and prayed that the same is erroneous and be set aside as the State Commission did not consider the facts and the law. The direction to refund excess amounts charged on account of the enhanced interest due to alteration of the Prime Lending Rate (PLR) are alleged to be erroneous as they were after due notice. As regards the issue of the stamp of “Sold” on the original property documents, it is contended that there is no evidence on record for the same and that the lower fora should have had further evidence adduced before arriving at its finding. It is alleged that the complaint is mala fide with an intention to make wrongful gains and is frivolous as it is based on conjectures and surmises without any cogent basis.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given careful consideration to the documents and evidence on record.
The finding of the State Commission in the impugned order regarding the issue of the enhanced amounts on interest ordered by it to be refunded is as below:
The next point for adjudication before us in this case is whether OP No.1 is justified in charging the rate of interest @ 19% instead of 14.75% p.a. The submission of OP No.1 is that BPLR (Bench Mark Prime Landing Rate) is subject to variation as per direction of Reserve Bank of India from time to time. It was further contended by OP No.1 that the complainants took the loan on floating rate of interest and as such, OP no.1 is authorised to increase the rate of interest to 19% on account of increase in BPLR which is regulated by their Asset Liability Management Guidelines. The submission of the counsel for the complainants is that no notice was issued to the complainants by the OPs for enhancing the interest rate as argued by OPs. We have examined the Loan Agreement Annexure R1/A on the record. Clause 2.C of the loan agreement dealing with interest is reproduced as under:-
"(c) In the event of Borrower's opts for the Floating interest Rate offered by IFSL, the rate of interest applicable to the Loan as on the date of execution of this agreement and the terms applicable to such Floating Interest Rate are as stated in Schedule-B."
Schedule-B clause b (iii) dealing with computation of rate of interest is reproduced as under:-
"Floating rate will be reset on the first day of the month following the quarter in which IFSL-PLR is changed."
From perusal of the above referred provisions, we have come to the conclusion that OP No.1 can enhance the floating rate of interest by resetting it only after following the procedure therefor. The OP No.1 relied upon the letters sent to the complainants in this regard. We find that there is no evidence on the record that these letters were actually posted to the complainants or sent through any courier service to them. There are no docket booking receipts produced by OP No.1 on the record nor there are any postal receipts or courier receipts to prove this fact that they were actually despatched to the complainants. In the absence of actual proof of their despatch to the complainants, we cannot accept the submissions of OP No.1 that due notice was given to the complainants for resetting the interest rate as per Schedule-B as referred-above. Consequently, we record this finding that OP No.1 reset the interest rate without any notice to the complainants and thereby charged it @ 19% p.a. The OP No.1 can reset the interest rate after giving due notice to the complainant and not without giving any notice to them or in not following the procedure. The counsel for OP No.1 could not rebut it on the record before us by means of any evidence.
With regard to the finding relating to the stamp of “Sold” on the mortgaged property papers, the impugned order of the State Commission is elaborate in stating as below:
It is an admitted fact that the complainant had obtained the loan facility of Rs.20,25,000/- vide loan No.HLAPBAT00054705 and No.HLAPBAT00054667 for Rs. 5,00,000/- in November, 2009 against property @ 14%, which is proved on record vide Ex.OP1/2 and OP1/3. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant got their above-referred loan amounts foreclosed on 19.11.2012 and paid an amount of Rs.14,18,884/- in account No..HLABAT00054705 and Rs.3,49,969.62p in account No.HLABAT00054367. As per the allegations made in the amended complaint in para No.19A that the official of the OP No.1 illegally and with malafide intention stamped sold on the registered sale deeds No.10623, 10624 dated 06.10.2008 and 6257 dated 02.12.2009. The another contention of the complainant is that the OP No.1 started increasing the rate of interest @ 9% p.a. and increased the rate of interest from 14.75% to 19% without prior consent of the complainant and OP No.1 had charged extra payment of pre-payment or fore-closure charges as well. The OP No.1 has specifically denied in its written statement in para No.19A that the stamp paper of sold has been imposed by its officer on the documents in question. The pleading of the OP No.1 are that the original sale deeds have been returned in the same condition to the complainants without defacing them. We have also examined the report of the Local Commissioner dated 20.05.2013, wherein, it was stated that “as per the record of the Registrar/Tehsildar, there is no such stamp of ‘sold’ having been imposed on any of the sale deeds as mentioned above and he applied for certified copies of the sale deeds, which have been received by him and are attached herewith this report for the perusal of this Forum.” It is observed that these certified copies of sale deeds as obtained by the Local Commissioner from the Sub-Registrar concerned are not original sale deeds. There is only one original sale deed which is duly stamped and registered and is passed on to the concerned party after its execution and registration and only copy of the sale deed is retained in the office of the Sub-Registrar for official use. There is not question of proving this fact by OP No.1 on the basis of certified copies of the sale deeds obtained from the office of SubRegistrar. Consequently, we are unable to place any reliance on the report of the Local Commissioner, as sought by OP No.1, for its exoneration in this case. On the other hand, the photostat copies of the original Sale Deeds are on the record proving that the stamp of sold are put on them. The complainants moved an application before District Forum for direction to OP No.1 to produce the original sale deeds for handing over them to the complainants vide statements of the parties dated 13.03.2013 recorded before District Forum. Jagdish Chander complainant received the sale deeds No.10623, 10624 and 6257 from Pawan Kumar Anand, Branch Credit Manager of OP No.1 under protest on the ground that the stamp of sold were put on them. There is no defence with OP No.1 to refute it on the record. Consequently, we record this observation on the basis of above referred evidence that OP No.1 defaced the sale deeds of the complainants with the stamp of sold put on them and thereby spoiled them including the stamp papers affixed on them. OP No.1 is deficient in service on this count.
The impugned order of the State Commission is thus after due notice to both the parties and opportunity to adduce evidence and address arguments on facts and law. The learned counsel during arguments did not argue any differently from the submissions before the lower fora on facts or merits. Whether the notice of intimation of change in interest rates was provided to respondents has been discussed in the impugned order. The report of the Commissioner appointed by the lower forum with regard to the property papers bearing the “sold” stamp has also been deliberated at some length. The issue of whether the respondents were ‘consumers’ under the purview of the Act after foreclosure of the loan is an issue being raised for the first time by the petitioner at this stage.
This Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction Commission is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence on record and substitute its own conclusion on facts. It can interfere with the findings of the foras below only on the grounds that the findings are either perverse or that the fora below have acted without jurisdiction. Findings can be concluded to be perverse only when they are based on either evidence that have not been produced or based on conjecture or surmises i.e. evidence which are either not part of the record or when material evidence on record is not considered. The power of this Commission to review under section 26 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order and different interpretation of same sets of facts has been held to be not permissible by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269, held that:
“………………… the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside………….”
This principle was reiterated in Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors vs H & R Johnson (India) Ltd., and Ors – (2016) 8 Supreme Court Case 286 which held that:
“the National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity……………”.
It is apparent that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the very same grounds which were raised before the District Forum as well as the State Commission in the appeal. Findings of facts of the District Forum are based on evidences and documents on record. The present revision petition is therefore an attempt by the petitioner to urge this Commission to re-assess, re-appreciate the evidence which cannot be done in revisional jurisdiction.
It is apparent that foras below have pronounced orders which are detailed and have dealt with all the contentions of the petitioner. These orders are based on facts and evidence on record. The petitioner has failed to show that the findings in the impugned order are perverse. We therefore, find no illegality or infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. The present revision petition is found to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed.