PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 20-05-2013 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 72/2013 ICICI Bank (Home Loan) Vs. Ganga Singh Shekhawat, by which while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld but compensation was reduced.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent obtained loan of Rs. 8 lakhs from opposite party/petitioner no. 1 on 29-04-2004 @ 7.5% p.a., which was to be repaid in installments of Rs.11,425/-. Opposite party without intimation to the complainant increased rate of interest and on enquiry it was revealed that as loan was given on floating rate, interest rate was increased as per instructions of RBI. It was further alleged that complainant deposited Rs.4,500/- with opposite party even then opposite party collected more interest than agreed interest. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that loan was obtained by complainant and his wife but his wife has not been impleaded as a party, hence complaint was not maintainable. It was further submitted that cause of action did not occurr in jurisdiction of District Forum and complaint was maintainable only in Mumbai. It was further submitted that interest rate was changed only after notice to the complainant and as loan was taken on floating rate, interest was changed from time to time. It was further submitted that after depositing Rs.4,500/- interest rate was reduced from 13.75% to 9.75% and no deficiency has been caused by opposite party and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite party to refund excess interest charged from the complainant above 7.5% p.a. and return that interest with 10% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs. One lakh as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost. Appeal filed by the opposite party was partly allowed and learned State Commission vide impugned order partly allowed appeal and compensation of Rs. One Lakh was reduced to Rs.50,000/- and rest of the appeal was dismissed, against which this revision petition has been filed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as loan was sanctioned on floating rate of interest, rate was increased after due notice to the complainant even then learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in allowing appeal only partly, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed.
4. Perusal of record reveals that loan was taken by complainant and his wife and loan agreement was signed by both of them even then complaint has been filed only by the complainant without impleading his wife as party. Neither District Forum nor State Commission has considered this aspect, which ought to have been considered and apparently complaint was not maintainable without impleading complainants wife as party.
5. Record further reveals that loan was taken on floating rate of interest and floating rate was liable to be increased or decreased as and when rates were increased and decreased by RBI. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record notice dated 07-09-2008 and 01-05-2009 by which intimation was given to the complainant regarding increase in rate of interest. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that rate of interest was increased number of times and learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed on record all the intimations for increase of rate of interest and directions of RBI. It is true that intimation for increasing rate of interest at every time has not been placed on record and directions of RBI have also not been placed on record but merely by not intimating to the complainant about increase of rate of interest, it cannot be inferred that rate of interest could not have been increased when loan had been taken on floating rate of interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of Honble Apex Court in , in which AIR 2003 SC 2122 Syndicate Bank Vs. R. Veeranna & Ors. it was observed as under:-- The High Court while holding that the party is bound to pay the interest at the agreed rate took the view that the Bank could not automatically charge the increased rate of interest merely on the basis of rise of interest on account of RBI circulars. It is not a case of automatically charging the increased rate of interest; charge of higher rate is based on agreement between the parties. The High Court was clearly in error in holding that the principles of natural justice were violated on the ground that the defendants were not put on notice before enhancing the rate of interest when the parties are bound by the terms of the contract. Thus, it becomes clear that even without notice petitioner was entitled to enhanced rate of interest on the basis of rise of interest by RBI.
7. Perusal of record further reveals that by Amendatory Agreement for Switch from present interest rate scheme to adjustable ROI, rate was reduced from 13.75% to 9.75% on depositing Rs.4,500/- by the complainant. Learned counsel for the respondent could not place on record any document showing that after Amendatory Agreement excess rate above 9.75% was charged by opposite party from the complainant. In such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that inspite of depositing Rs.4,500/- by the complainant, opposite party charged excess interest rate from the complainant.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on judgment of Honble Apex Court in in which it was AIR 2001 SC 3095 Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Ors., observed as under:-- With effect from 15-02-1984 section 21a has been inserted in the Act which takes away power of the Court to re-open a transaction between a banking company and its debtor on the ground that the rate of interest charged is excessive. The provision has been given an overriding effect over the Usury Loans Act, 1918 and any other provincial law in force relating to indebtedness. In the light of aforesaid judgment it becomes clear that District Forum had no jurisdiction to re-open transaction between complainant and opposite party on the ground that rate of interest charged was excessive. Thus, District Forum committed error in allowing complaint directing opposite party to refund interest charged beyond 7.5% and further committed error in granting compensation and learned State Commission also committed error in allowing appeal only partly and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 20-05-2013 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 72/2013 ICICI Bank (Home Loan) Vs. Ganga Singh Shekhawat and order of District Forum dated 12-12-2012 passed in Complaint No. 968/2009 Ganga Shekhawat Vs. ICICI Bank (Home Loan) & Anr. is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. ......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER