1. COUNSEL for the parties heard. The case of the complainant, Mr. Rangamma M.C. is this. He was permitted to have loan in the sum of Rs. 3,12,000/ - from the OPs/petitioners.. The said amount was payable on the equated monthly instalments. EMI was to be paid in the sum of Rs. 3660/ -. The rate of interest was @ 10% p.a. and the said amount was to be paid in 156 instalments.
2. THE District Forum rendered the following order: - -
"The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally shall pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - to the Complainant towards balance sanctioned housing loan, less one EMI of Rs. 3,482/ - and also pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - towards damages and a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - towards costs of the proceedings to the Complainant.
The payable amount shall carry future interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of Complaint till realization.
The Opposite Parties are directed to fix the further EMIs basing on the prevailing interest from time to time for the recovery of the duties from the Complainant."
The State Commission in the appeal filed before it confirmed the said order.
Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention towards para Nos. 1 (c) & (d) of the letter of offer, which are reproduced here as under: - -"c) The EMI shall be payable from the month immediately following the month in which the complete disbursements are made till then PEMI is payable on monthly basis at the rate mentioned above on the amount disbursed. The EMI/PEMIs are payable on the last day of every month failing which a penal interest @ 2% p.m. shall be chargeable on the PEMI/EMI amount for the delayed period. One advance EMI is payable immediately in the same month in which the complete disbursement is made.
d) In the event of Weizmann Homes Ltd., increasing the interest rate prior to the disbursement of the full loan the rate as increased shall be applicable to the loan forthwith from the date of such increase and borrower shall pay interest on the principal amount of the loan O/S at such increased rate, provided further that WHL, may from time to time in its sole discretion increase the rate of interest suitably, if there is an increase in the cost of borrowing of WHL and the same shall be applicable to the loan. The opinion of Weizmann Homes Ltd., in this regard shall be final and binding on you."
3. THE evidence on record clearly reveals that the respondent has paid PEMI till 26.09.2006. Counsel for the petitioner submits that these instalments were not paid fully. The receipt dated 26.09.2006 shows that a sum of Rs. 1800/ - and Receipt dated 16.08.2006 reveals that amount in the sum of Rs. 1990/ - was paid. The receipts also show that Rs. 3,000/ - was paid on 29.02.2008 and Rs. 4,000/ - on 30.06.2008. It is, therefore, clear that the complainant was not regular in paying the PEMI. It is also surprising to note that the OPs also did not take any action. They did not give him any notice that they will charge 2% extra that for delayed period. They should have made a note that such and such amount is less and 2% penal charges will be imposed upon them.
4. ARTICLE 4.2 (a) mentions: - -
"a. Non existence of Event of Default:
No event of default as defined in Article 7 shall have happened and no event, which with the lapse of time, or notice and lapse of time, would become an event of default, has happened and been continuing."
and Article 7 (a) reads as follows: - -
"a. Payment of Dues
Default shall have occurred in payment of EMIs as provided for in Article 2.7 (a), in payment of PEMII as provided for in Article 2.7 (b) and in payment of any other amounts due and payable by or on behalf of the Borrower to WHL in terms of this Agreement and/or it terms of any other Agreement/s, document/s, they may be subsisting or that may be executed/entered into by and between the Borrower and WHL, hereinafter."
It must be mentioned here that the language of the agreement is so abstruse, esoteric and ambiguous that a layman has great difficulty to understand the same. For a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/ -, the loan papers run into about 40 pages. However, there is no reason why the interest rate was enhanced and why did they charge the compound interest. No reasoning was given or no ground was made out as to why the 1(d), cited above, was pressed into service.
5. CONSEQUENTLY , I accept the Revision Petition partly. The OPs were right in not paying the remaining disbursement because of the defaults made by the complainant. Counsel for the respondent/complainant admits that he does not require balance amount in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ -The respondent has already paid the entire amount with interest @10% till 31.07.2008. Petitioners can charge 2% penal interest besides 10% on the default, if any, till 2008. The petitioners need not pay any compensation i.e. in the sum of Rs. 50,000/, Rs. 15,000/ - and Rs. 1,000/ -. The petitioners are further directed not to invoke the guarantee, promissory note, mortgage deed of immovable property etc. against the complainant.
6. THE Revision Petition stands disposed of.
