Case nº First Appeal No. 767 Of 2017, (Against the Order dated 09/01/2017 in Complaint No. 203/2010 of the State Commission Maharastra) of NCDRC Cases, May 12, 2017 (case Magma Housing Finance (Formerly Known As Ge Money Housing Finance) Vs Mathew V. Thomas & Anr.)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. Sumit Goswami, Advocate |
| President | Mr. D.K. Jain,President and Mrs. M. Shreesha,Member |
| Resolution Date | May 12, 2017 |
| Issuing Organization | NCDRC Cases |
Order:
-
By this First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), a Housing Finance Company, namely, GE Money Housing Finance, now known as Magma Housing Finance, calls in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 09.01.2017, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai (for short "the State Commission") in Consumer Complaint No. RBT/CC/13/109 in CC/10/203. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the Complaint, holding that the Respondents/Complainants are entitled to recover by way of refund the excess amount of interest, i.e. `1,21,000/-, charged by the Appellant herein. Since the Appellant had disclosed the name of the Complainants as defaulter in the data base of defaulters without any valid ground, the State Commission has also held that the Complainants would be entitled to recover, from the Appellant, a further sum of `50,000/- as damages and `1,00,000/- as costs of litigation.
-
The circumstances, necessitating filing of the Complaint are as follows:
2.1 By availing housing loans in the sums of `18,00,000/- and `14,21,000/- on 18.08.2006 and 28.09.2006 respectively from the Appellant on interest @ 9.86% p.a., the Complainants had purchased a flat, bearing no. B-202, situated in Shiv Om Apartments, Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri (East), Mumbai. In view of age of the Complainants, the loans were required to be repaid in EMIs of `18,671/- and `14,739/-, dependent on the interest rate, within 192 months, and in case of any increase in the interest rate, the EMIs were to be increased accordingly but not the period. However, subsequently upon increase in the interest rate, the Appellant vide its letter dated 01.01.2007 increased the repayment period from 192 to 216 months and so on from time to time, i.e. up-to 382 months. Out of 24+3/24+4 cheques issued by the Complainants, not a single cheque was returned unpaid. The Complainants protested, orally and in writing, against the increase in the period of repayment and stopped paying further EMIs. The Appellant did not respond to any query raised by the Complainants and instead reported the Complainants'' name to the Credit Information Bureau India Ltd. (CIBIL) as defaulters. The Appellant also invoked the Arbitration agreement between the parties. In the aforesaid background and complaining that the Appellant was not charging the interest rate as per the guidelines issued by...
To continue reading
Request your trial