IMPORTANT POINT
Guidelines – Once such guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India are issued the same is binding on the opposite parties/Respondents/LIC and any clause in the loan agreement to the contrary cannot come to the rescue of the Opposite parties (M/s LIC Housing Finance Ltd.,) and they cannot impose conditions beyond the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India.

ORDER

Meena Ramanathan, President—These are the appeals filed U/s.41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 04.03.2020 of the District Consumer Commission-II, Hyderabad made in CC.No.83/2019. The Opposite Parties filed FA.No.388/2020 and the Complainants filed FA.No.732/2020. As both these appeals arise out of the same order, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint. 3

3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the Complainants have availed an housing loan of Rs.49,00,000/- (Rupees forty nine lakh only) from the opposite parties on 31.10.2017 on floating rate of interest. They have repaid Rs.36,00,000/- (Rupees thirty six lakh only) on 20.12.2017, in a span of two months and requested to charge interest on the balance amount of Rs.12,88,585/- from 20.12.2017. The complainants were informed on 28.12.2017 that first six months from the date of disbursement of loan the interest is to be paid on total loan amount. The opposite parties informed that a penalty amount of Rs.2,02,508/- would be charged as penal interest from January 2018 to May 2018, due to which they did not foreclose the loan account and continued paying the instalments. The complainants sent emails to the opposite parties to reduce the interest amount on already paid amount, but they have not considered their request to waive the interest on paid amount. On 12.04.2018 they addressed a letter to the Department of Regulation and Supervision of National Housing Bank. They could not get any satisfactory relief from there also, they requested the opposite parties to refund the part payment amount, but they failed to do so. Hence the complaint.

4. The Opposite Parties filed their counter denying the averments of the complainant and stated that as the opposite parties have not rendered any services to the complainants and the agreement between them is purely a commercial transaction, as such the complainants are not consumers. The opposite parties stated that according to the Clause 8 of the Sanction letter, the complainants are not entitled for waiver of interest on amount already paid. Hence, prayed the Commission to dismiss the complaint.

5. During the course of trial, the complainants have filed their evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A12. The opposite parties filed their evidence affidavit and no documents marked on their behalf. 4

6. The District Commission after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint in part, directing the opposite parties jointly and severally:—

(i) to refund the sum of Rs.1,53,029/- (Rupees one lakh fifty three thousand and twenty nine only) collected towards interest on Rs.36,00,000/- (i.e. the already paid amount);

(ii) to pay a compensation of Rs.35,000/- for mental agony, stress and hardship;

(iii) to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, in default an interest of 9% shall be accrued on item No.1 amount.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellants/Opposite Parties preferred the present appeal vide FA No.388/2020 with the following grounds:—

• The order of the Commission below is contrary to law, natural justice, equity, fair play, contrary to the material on record.

• The Commission below came to an erroneous conclusion that the Appellant charged prepayment charges.

• The Commission below failed to appreciate the fact that the Sanction letter and loan agreement does not speak about pre- payment charges and specifies only with regard to levy of interest.

• The Commission below failed to appreciate the fact that the Respondents/Complainants have been levied interest on the total outstanding amount as per Clause 8 of Sanction Letter.

• The Commission below failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellants/opposite parties have collected agreed interest from the Respondents/Complainants.

• The Commission below