IMPORTANT POINT
Home Loan – When parties have signed agreement, terms agreed therein would bind parties and email exchanged between parties cannot override policy decisions of Financial Institution.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. Bopanna, J.

1. The appellant is before this Court in this appeal claiming to be aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2022 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (‘NCDRC’ for short) in Consumer Complaint No. 2367 of 2018. By the said order the NCDRC has concluded that the appellant is bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 11.01.2006, while the respondent was bound by various instructions of the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’ for short), at the time of signing the agreement dated 11.01.2006. Hence the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant is therefore before this Court.

2. The brief facts are that the appellant was in need of home loan. The respondents No. 2 and 3 being the employees of respondent No. 1 approached the appellant during August 2005. The appellant was exploring the option of securing loan from other financial institutions as well. The case of the appellant is that respondents No. 2 and 3 being the direct sales agent and the resident manager of respondent No. 1 - HDFC convinced the appellant that the rate of interest charged by the respondent No. 1 on home loan was lesser than what was being charged by ICICI Bank. In this regard, the appellant relied on an email dated 05.10.2005 from respondent No. 2 to contend that a comparison was provided in the said email to the appellant that the rate of interest offered by respondent No.1 was cheaper.

3. It is contended that the respondent No. 2, on behalf of respondent No. 1 had assured that the rate of interest would be charged based on the Prime Lending Rate of RBI. Based on such representations the appellant is stated to have applied for home loan of Rs.3,50,00,000/= (Rupees Three Crores and Fifty Lakhs) from respondent No.1, which was sanctioned and the loan agreement dated 11.01.2006 was entered into. The loan amount was disbursed to DLF Universal Ltd., in instalments between January 2006 to December 2007. As per the loan agreement, interest at 7.25% p.a. and margin of 3.5 % per annum was provided. Though this was the position, the grievance of the appellant is that the respondent No. 1 revised the rate of interest to 8.25 %, despite RBI not having changed the Prime Lending Rate during 11.01.2006 to 01.05.2006.

4. In spite of the complainant contacting the respondent No. 2 and other officers, there was no relief, instead, the respondent No. 1 raised the rate of interest to 8.75 %, to 9.25% and again to 10.5% though there was no change made by RBI with regard to the Prime Lending Rate. The appellant therefore got issued a legal notice dated 27.09.2007 demanding to return the interest amount which was charged over and above 7.5% p. a. The respondent No.1 vide their reply to the notice dated 09.10.2007 contended that the appellant through the agreement opted for ‘Adjustable Rate of interest’, as such rate of interest was varying as per the retail prime lending rate of respondent No. 1. It is in that background the appellant approached the Consumer Forum.

5. We have heard Sri. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Sri. Aniruddha Choudhary for the respondents and perused the appeal papers.

6. The thrust of the contention is that the respondent No. 2 on behalf of respondent No.1 had assured that the interest charged by respondent No.1 is as per the retail prime lending rate to be notified by RBI. As such the interest which was indicated at 7.25% p.a. can be altered only if the RBI had altered the rate of interest and not otherwise. Though, in the agreement it is contained that the rate of interest would be as per the prime lending rate of interest of respondent No.1, the same is contrary to the assurance that was held out to the appellant that such adjustable rate of interest agreed is only when the rate of interest is varied by the RBI and not as per the interest to be varied by respondent No.1. The learned senior counsel for the appellant in that regard has placed strong relian