Government, in May 2010, advised Public Sector Banks, Indian Banks’ Association and National Housing Bank that no pre-payment charges may be levied by the lending institutions when the loan amount is paid by the borrowers out of their own funds; and if any pre-payment charges are to be imposed on housing loans, the same need to be reasonable and transparent and not out of line with the average cost of providing these services.
The Public Sector Banks (PSBs) have reported that by and large they do not levy any pre-payment charges when the amount is paid by the borrowers from their own sources.
In general, own funds means funds generated through ‘own sources’ and not through borrowings by any lender. Prepayment of loan by a borrower can take place on account of (i) takeover of his / her loan by other lender, and (ii) out of their own sources. In the first case, the borrower often gets their existing loan refinanced by other lender, if the interest rate offered by other lending institution in the market was lower and attractive.
In terms of RBI guidelines, in the context of granting greater functional autonomy to banks, freedom has been given to scheduled commercial banks, including public sector banks, private sector banks and foreign banks, on all operational matters pertaining to banking transactions.
This information was given by the Minister of State for Finance Shri Namo Narain Meena in a written reply to a question raised in Rajya Sabha today.
“…no pre-payment charges may be levied by the lending institutions when the loan amount is paid by the borrowers out of their own funds; and if any pre-payment charges are to be imposed on housing loans, the same need to be reasonable and transparent and not out of line with the average cost of providing these services.”
OBVIOUSLY,THE LATTER PART OF THE DIRECTIVE,-AS COVERED IN THE RIDER BEGINNING WITH THE WORDS ‘and if’- CAN HAVE NO APPLICATION TO CASES OF PREPAYMENTS OUT OF OWN FUNDS AS ENVISAGED IN THE PRECEDING PART.IT SEEMS ADVISABLE TO HAVE THIS MADE QUITE CLEAR, AND EXPLICIT, TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM ANY PALE OF POSSIBLE CONTROVERSY.
ADDITIONALLY, AS URGED ELSEWHERE EVEN BEFORE,THERE IS NO LOGIC, MUCH LESS RHYME OR REASON, IN THE LARGELY OBTAINING PRESENT PRACTICE OF RECOVERING, AT THE TIME OF PREPAYMENT,THE SAME AMOUNT OF EMI(s)INCLUSIVE OF THE INTEREST AMOUNT(S) AS ORIGINALLY RECKONED/CALCULATED,WITHOUT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT BY VIRTUE OF FORECLOSURE,THE ENTIRE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OUTSTANDING GETS REPAID AT AN EARLIER POINT IN TIME (THAN THE ORIGINALLY CONTRACTED PERIOD),THEREBY RESULTING IN A SAVING TO THE BANK. MORE SO, AS,IN A SCENARIO OF INCREASED ROI OBTAINING AS OF NOW,ANY FORECLOSURE DOES GO TO RESULT IN AN UNANTICIPATED GAIN TO THE BANK.IT IS HIGH TIME THAT THE RBI SHOULD COME OUT WITH A SUITABLE SUPPLEMENTARY DIRECTIVE, SO AS TO REMOVE THE PREVAILING ANOMALY AND SECURE JUSTICE TO THE BORROWERS.