LexRAJESH MONGA versus HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 3 S.C.R. 1 : 2024 INSC 162 Rajesh Monga v. Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1495 of 2023) 04 March 2024 [A.S. Bopanna* and M.M. Sundresh JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether an adjustable rate of interest on home loan would apply based only on the rate of interest being fixed/altered by RBI or the rate of interest fixed/ altered by respondent No.1-Bank. Headnotes Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Rate of interest to be charged on home loan – Home buyer filed loan application, opting an adjustable rate of interest – Manager of the Bank assured that the rate of interest would be charged based on the Prime Lending Rate of RBI – Loan amount disbursed, and thereafter, the rate of interest was revised from 7.25% pa to 8.25% pa despite RBI not having changed the Prime Lending Rate and was further increased to 10.5% pa though no change made by RBI – Consumer complaint – National Consumer held that home buyer was bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement while the bank was bound by various instructions of RBI at the time of signing the agreement – Interference with: Held: Respondent No.1 being a NBFC and as a corporate body would be bound by its policies and procedures with regard to lending and recovery – Applicability of the rate of interest to be charged is a policy matter and cannot be case-specific unless the individual agreement entered into between the parties indicate otherwise – When the parties have signed the agreement, the terms agreed therein would bind the parties and the email exchanged between the parties cannot override the policy decisions of the institution – Having executed the agreement; having agreed to the terms and conditions; having received the loan amount, the appellant-home buyer cannot raise any objection for the first time 2 [2024] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports when the rate of interest was increased after having acquiesced by signing the agreement – Further, the appellant having repaid the loan amount with interest as per the terms of agreement cannot make out a grievance in hindsight and seek refund of the amount paid – In view thereof, no error has been committed so as to call for interference. [Para 10 – 16] Case Law Cited Texco Marketing (P) Ltd. v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. [2022] 9 SCR 1031 : (2023) 1 SCC 428; Debashis Sinha v. R.N.R. Enterprise (2023) 3 SCC 195; Pradeep Kumar v. Postmaster General [2022] 19 SCR 583 : (2022) 6 SCC 351; Board of Trustees of Chennai Port Trust v. Chennai Container Terminal Private Ltd. (2014) 1 CTC 573 – referred to. List of Acts Consumer Protection Act, 1986. List of Keywords Adjustable rate of interest; Home loan; Rate of interest being fixed/altered by RBI; Prime Lending Rate of RBI; Policies and procedures with regard to lending and recovery; Agreement; Acquiesced; Unfair trade practice; Policy decisions; Compensation; Financial institution. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1495 of 2023 From the Judgment and Order dated 10.11.2022 of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in CC No. 2367 of 2018 Appearances for Parties Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Varun Singh, Akshay Dev, Mohammad Atif Ahmad, Nitin Saluja, Ms. Deepika Kalia, Ms. Vaishnavi, Keshav Khandelwal, Ms. Pranya Madan, Pankaj Kumar Modi, Advs. for the Appellant. Aniruddha Choudhury, Ms. Mandira Mitra, Ms. Tushita Ghosh, Rohit, Advs. for the Respondents. [2024] 3 S.C.R. 3 Rajesh Monga v. Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited & Ors. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. The appellant is before this Court in this appeal claiming to be aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2022 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (‘NCDRC’ for short) in Consumer Complaint No. 2367 of 2018. By the said order the NCDRC has concluded that the appellant is bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 11.01.2006, while the respondent was bound by various instructions of the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’ for short), at the time of signing the agreement dated 11.01.2006. Hence the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant is therefore before this Court. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant was in need of home loan. The respondents No. 2 and 3 being the employees of respondent No. 1 approached the appellant during August 20
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.