The lack of specification of the exact excess amount charged and the matter of rendition of account being outside the domain of consumer dispute led to the dismissal of the complaint.

ORDER :

J.S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member—Challenge in this appeal by appellants is to order dated 23.7.2018 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short the ‘District Forum’), dismissing their complaint. The appellants of this appeal are complainants in the complaint before the District Forum below and respondents of this appeal are opposite parties (in short ‘OPs’) therein and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

2. The complainants filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) against OPs on the averments that they took a house loan of Rs. 10 lacs @ 7.5 % interest per annum and the EMI was Rs. 9,270 for the term of 15 years on floating rate basis on 10.8.2004 from OP Nos. 1 and 2, through OP No. 3 under the scheme Griha Lakshmi on floating rate basis. It was further averred that the EMI was increased from Rs. 9,270 to Rs. 9,557 and thereafter to Rs. 9,887 without any notice to them by OP Nos. 1 and 2. In the year 2013, as per the guidelines/instructions of Govt. of India and RBI, regarding rates of interest on housing loan accounts including the loan in question, OPs did not revise the rates of interest and as such they approached OP No. 2 on 1.7.2017 and as per its insistence, they gave a cheque of Rs. 1,150 on account of fee etc., which has been received by OP No. 2 wrongly and illegally. They requested OPs for refund of the excess amount so recovered, but to no effect. The complainants alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. They prayed that OPs be directed to adjust the excess interest, so charged from them and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses to them and to refund Rs. 1,150 with interest @18% per annum from the date of its deposit till actual payment.

3. Upon notice, OP Nos. 1 and 2 filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainants vehemently. They admitted this fact that OP No. 1 gave a loan offer letter for sanction of Rs. 10.00 Lacs on 20.8.2004 to them at the rate of interest 7.50% per annum specifically mentioning that with reference to their application for housing loan, the OP offered advance loan, subject to the terms and conditions annexed herewith, which shall form part and parcel of this loan offer letter. It is further admitted that the instalment of the loan was increased from Rs. 9,270 to Rs. 9,557 and further to Rs. 9,887 per month as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. It was further admitted that complainants sent a written request to OPs to revise the rate of interest and a cheque of Rs. 1,150 was also submitted by them on the pretext of charges. OPs denied the fact that they charged the above amount of Rs. 1,150 illegally and arbitrarily. As per Clause 2.2(d) of Article 2 of the loan agreement, the borrower/s shall reimburse or pay such amount as may have been paid or payable by LICHFL to the Central or State Government on account of any tax levied on interest (and/or other charges including the PEMII) on loan by the Central or State Government. The reimbursement or payment shall be made by borrower/s as and when called upon to do so by LICHFL. The OPs are, thus, duty bound to revise the rate of interest from time to time, as per the instructions of RBI. The answering OPs controverted the other averments of the complainants and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. OP No. 3 filed its separate written reply by raising legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable, as OP No. 3 has been wrongly impleaded as a party in this case. OP No. 3 Sanjeev Kansal has no concern with Sahib and Sahib Financial Service, Sangrur. He prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5. The complainants tendered in evidence affidavit and copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence. As against it, OP Nos. 1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit and copies of documents Ex. OP 1 and 2/1 to Ex.OP1 and 2/10 and closed evide