The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for consent in changing EMIs and interest rates, and the implications of unfair trade practices in the loan agreement.

ORDER

Prem Narain, Presiding Member. - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. & anr., against the order dated 02.03.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No. 391 of 2014.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner changed the number of EMIs for repayment of loan taken by the respondent/complainant. It was alleged by the complainant that the bank has taken unilateral decision without taking consent of the complainant. The complainant filed a complaint bearing No.CC 340 of 2013 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda, (in short 'the District Forum'). The case was contested by the opposite parties/petitioner on the ground that the number of EMIs can be changed by the bank as per the agreement entered between the parties. The District Forum after considering the submissions of both the parties allowed the complaint vide its order dated 13.01.2014 as under:-

"10. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs. 10,000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to seek the consent from the complainant regarding the increase in the number of instalments or he wants the amount of EMI to be increased. After seeking his consent, the opposite parties will reschedule the number of instalments and amount of EMI after adjusting the amount already paid by the complainant in his loan account and fix the rate of interest as agreed in the loan agreement as per RBI guidelines and furnish him the full detail regarding the increase/decease rate of interest since the date of disbursement of the loan till this order.

The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order."

3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties/petitioners herein preferred an appeal bearing No. 391 of 2014 before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide its order dated 02.03.2017.

4. Hence the present revision petition.

5. The learned counsel for petitioners mentioned that there is a provision in the loan agreement that the loaner institution can increase or decrease the number of EMIs based on the prevailing interest rate and for that no consent of the loanee is required. The learned counsel stated that both the fora below have not appreciated this fact that the court or forum cannot rewrite the agreement in this regard. Learned counsel further submitted that where the provision for floating interest/instalments is there in the agreement, it can be unilaterally changed without the consent of the loanee. Learned counsel stated that this view has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment of Indian Bank v. Blue Jaggers Estates Ltd. and Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2980 , wherein it has been observed:

"16. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the rate of interest is unconscionable, expropriatory and contrary to law also merits rejection because at no stage the respondents had questioned the terms on which loan and other financial facilities were extended by the appellant. That apart, after having enjoyed those facilities for more than one decade, the respondents cannot turn around and raise an argument based on the judgments of this Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguly (1986) 3 SCC 156 and Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and others 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 600. It must be remembered that the respondents were not in a position of disadvantage vis-a-vis the appellant. If they so wanted, the respondents could have declined to avail loan and other financial facilities made available by the appellant. However, the fact of the matter is that they had signed the agreement wit