N. BASKARAN Vs HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD

There is delay of 85 days in filing this revision petition. The petitioner has moved an application for condonation of delay. It is explained that impugned order was announced on 18.11.2014. The petitioner received copy on 16.12.2014. On 3.3.2015, copy was inadvertently misplaced and could not be traced. The petitioner applied for certified copy of the same, which was furnished to him on 25.3.2015. Thereafter, he applied for leave from his office to file the petition but the same was denied on account of accountancy work required to be undertaken by the petitioner due to closing of the financial year. On 9.4.2014, the petitioner came to Delhi where the Registry of this Commission asked him to file the entire record of pleadings. He consulted a counsel on 11.4.2015. He came back to his home town and arranged documents of the case record for dispatch to his office address in Delhi. The counsel received the paper on 21.4.2015. On 24.4.2015, the petitioner sent some more documents to the advocate. On 27.4.2015, it transpired that some of the documents were in Tamil Language. It took time in translating them. The petitioner has given sufficient ground for condonation of delay. Therefore, I hereby condone the delay.

I have heard the learned proxy counsel for the revisionist-Shri N. Baskaran at the time of admission of this case.

The complainant obtained housing loan in the sum of Rs.4,50,000/- from the Housing Development Financial Corporation (in short, ''HDFC Ltd.'') during March, 2005. The complainant paid the EMIs regularly. Numerous requests were made to the OP to furnish the statement of accounts but the Bank failed to do so. The complainant left the company six months after obtaining the loan. The OP had obtained 24 post-dated cheques from the complainant at the time of sanctioning the loan. The complainant got his salary only after 10 of every month and th sometimes after 15 of the month. The complainant was not in a position to keep sufficient th balance in his account. The complainant requested the OP to send the post-dated cheques already given for clearance on 20 day of the month instead of 10 day of the month. However, the OP th th could not do the needful.

It is further alleged that the OP increased the interest unilaterally. The other banks were collecting interest @ 10.5 % per annum whereas the OP was collecting interest @ 11.75 % per annum.

The defence set up by the OP is that as a matter of fact, the petitioner waddled out of the commitments made in the loan agreement. There was default in repayments despite sending reminders to the complainant. Since there were defaults, the additional interest was charged as per the agreement. The District Forum dismissed the complaint and the State Commission confirmed the order rendered by the District Forum.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the complainant was paying the EMIs regularly. It is apparent that the petitioner is economical with the truth. Para 4 of the written version runs as under: "4. The opposite party denies all the allegations stated by the complainant in Para 2, 3 and 4. In para 6 of page 2, the Complainant has admitted that he could not repay the EMI from September 2008 to December 2008 due to his family problems. As there was a default in repayments, the Opposite party had necessarily to send reminders to the Complainant but this cannot be a reason for his mental agony."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequently the said loan was paid with penalty. The loan agreement entered into between the parties dated 19 March, 2005 is crucial. th The relevant portion runs as follows:

"2.6 Amortisation

a. Term of repayment 240 months

b. EMI Rs.3626/-

Number of EMIs 240

a. Date of commencement of EMI 1 day of April, 05 st

b. Due date of payment of first Emi 5 Day of May, 05 th

However, in the event of delay or advancement of disbursement. The date of commencement of Emi shall be the first day of the month following the month in which the disbursement will have been completed. In such a case, the due date of payment of the first Emi shall be the 5 Day of the month following such month. th The borrower shall endeavour to pay subsequent EMIs at the end of each respective month but in any case shall pay on or before the 5 Day of the following month. th Subject to variation in terms of this agreement.

Learned counsel for the petitioner half-heartedly argued that vide letter dated 18.8.2007, the rate of interest was changed and the term of repayment was further reduced to 40 months.

These arguments lack conviction. The terms were varied as per the agreement reached between the parties.

Secondly, the Bank was not bound to present the cheque on 20 day of each month. They th were to send the cheque on 10 of each month as per the agreement. The OP cannot be held th responsible for the changes, which occur subsequently.

The construction of contract entered into between the parties assumes importance. It is a settled law that court should refrain from any interpretation which would result in injustice and absurdity, AIR 1963 SC 25. The question to be considered is not what was intended, but what has been said. We cannot amend or substitute anything in the contract, as per law laid down in Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2010) 10 SCC 567, General Assurance Society Ltd. vs. Chandmull Jain, 1966 ACJ 267 (SC), Harchand Rai Chandan Lal''s case, 2005 ACJ 570 (SC).

Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that statements of account were not received. In this respect, he has pointed out that a letter was sent to the opposite parties on 15.11.2007 wherein it was prayed that statement of account should be sent.

Both the fora below have observed in no uncertain terms that the OPs furnished statement of account, Ex. A-3, A-5, A-6, A-15, A-16, A-20. Learned counsel for the petitioner came up with a new plea. He argued that the OP had sent only the amount, which was paid by the petitioner. Proper statement of account was not sent showing the loan obtained, the rest of the amount and the amount already paid. He however admitted that no such request was made by the petitioner to send such like proper statement of account nor there was any evidence to show that he personally approached the bank for such clarification. Consequently, this argument is without any substance and has to be eschewed out of consideration. The revision petition sans merits, is hereby dismissed.