Per Shri S.B. Sawarkar, Hon’ble Member

          This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 20/07/2010 passed by District Forum, Kolhapur in consumer complaint No.30/2010 filed by Dr.Himmatsinh Narayanrao Shinde, complainant now appellant against the LIC Housing Finance Company Ltd., Kolhapur-opponent now respondent. 

2.       It was complaint of the appellant that on 14/07/2005 he took a loan of `11,90,000/- from the respondent with floating rate of interest with duration of 20 years for construction of his house.  EMI was `9,627/- at 7.5% rate of interest and appropriate agreement was made between the parties.  During the further payment of EMIs when the rate of interest got increased, repayment duration was extended without making any change in the EMI. The complainant when on 20/07/2007 inspected his statement of repayment he found that out of EMI of `9,627/- only `193/- was adjusted towards repayment of principal whereas remaining amount was getting adjusted towards interest.  He felt that with this speed it was absolutely impossible to repay the loan.  He also found that the liquidation date of the loan had extended to 01/07/1945, indicating that the appellant will have to pay the EMI till the age of 80 years.

3.       As the rate of interest again increased, appellant made a request to reduce the repayment duration to 10 years hence, EMI was raised to `10,246/- which was paid by the appellant.  Upon his request for reduction of repayment duration, he was directed to submit Income Tax Returns by the respondents and was asked to pay `170/- for re-agreement and was also told that if the repayment duration was to be reduced, the EMI would get increased to `12,930/-.  Appellant appropriately paid post-dated cheques, but he was not given copy of the agreements in spite of repeated requests. 

4.       The appellant also complained that when the rate of interest was reduced from 10.25 to 9.75 without giving any caution or information to the appellant, EMI was reduced from `12,930/- to `11,264/- and the liquidation date was increased to May 2025.  The complainant/appellant was prepared to pay `18,000/- per month to get himself acquitted of the loan but he was told that if he pre-closes the account, he was required to pay the penalty charges.  Appellant felt it to be insulted and therefore, transferred his loan from respondent to Axis Bank for which he was required to spend `35,000/- extra.  Appellant, therefore, made a complaint that he is a victim of respondent’s scheming and respondent had created a scheme to keep the appellant perpetually under pressure of the loan and therefore, attributed deficiency of service to the respondent and demanded the amount of `3,53,710/- plus `35,000/- spent for transferring the loan and `5 Lakhs as compensation for agony and expenditure.

5.       Opponent/respondent repudiated the allegations of the complainant/appellant and had stated that the appellant had taken a loan of `11,90,000/- with floating rate of interest and duration of 20 years for which appropriate agreement was made.  After taking of loan as the rate of interest started rising and went to almost 9.75 (from 01/02/2007) because of which the entire amount of EMI started getting adjusted in appropriation of interest only.  Therefore, respondent increased EMI from `9