Surinder Pal Kaur ORDER
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Member (J)
1. The appellants/OPs (hereinafter referred as "OPs") have filed the present appeal against the order dated 4.6.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib(hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No. 48 dated 12.3.2013 vide winch the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant(hereinafter referred as the complainant) was accepted with a direction to the OPs not to charge more than 12.75% interest rate from the date of disbursement of the loan till date, then also pay ` 10,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and ` 5,000/- as litigation expenses. A consumer complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) against the OPs on the averments that he was sanctioned a loan against the property bearing A/c. No. LBMGH00001662984 on 29.10.2007 for ` 43 lacs @ 14.25% per annum by OP No. 1, which was required to be repaid in 180 monthly instalments, which was fixed at ` 57,989/-. The complainant had paid the instalments regularly for the last 5 years, in the month of November, 2012 when the complainant approached OP Branch to obtain the copy of statement of his loan account then it came to his knowledge that OP No. 1 had increased the rate of interest from 14.25% to 17% and period of monthly instalments was extended from 15 years to 27 years without any intimation to the complainant. The Complainant was not informed about such changes in the rate of interest. The bank also informed the complainant on visit to the bank that by paying some amount to the bank, the interest rate of the said loan will be reduced or by increasing the amount of loan. He will be charged at the rate of interest, which was available to the new customers. The complainant was also not informed about these scheme. The increase in rate of interest without knowledge/consent of the complainant was unfair trade practice and deficiency in services on the part of the OPs which necessitated to file the complaint with the direction to the Ops to produce the circulars regarding the house loan, compensate the complainant for inconvenience and harassment direct the Ops to adjust the increased rate of interest with the rate of interest as per sanctioned letter i.e. 14.25% directing the Ops not to charge any penalties on the last three unpaid instalments, pay a sum of ` 1 lac towards compensation and ` 5500/- as litigation expenses.
2. The complaint was contested by the Ops, who filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the matter between the parties was related to the breach of contract, which was not maintainable before the Consumer Fora and he should have availed this remedy before the Civil Court; the complainant was not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act; the complaint of the complainant was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as co-applicant Ajay Kumar Goyal, Radha Goyal and Sanjay Kumar have not been impleaded as a party under Section 21-A of the Banking Regulation Act, the rate of Interest charged by the Bank was not subject to the scrutiny of it was admitted that the loan of ` 43 lacs was sanctioned in favour of the complainant on interest @ 14.25% with monthly instalments of ` 57,989/-. It was denied that in the year 2012 the complainant visited the OP Branch and obtained the statement of account of his house loan account, he came to know about the increased rate of interest and the period was changed from 15 years to 27 years. In fact the complainant had obtained the loan on floating basis and the te........