BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
FA 1025 of 2013 against CC 231 of 2012 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy District
Between:
B. Raghunadha Rao,
S/o Venkata Ramana Murthy, age 67 years,
R/o Plot no. 641, HMT Hills
Kukatpally, Hyderabad – 500 085 … Appellant/complainant
And
- The Chief Manager,
Syndicate Bank, Madhapur Branch
Plot no. 21, Guttala Begumpet,
Hyderabad – 500081
02 The Manager ( Advances )
Syndicate Bank, Madhapur Branch
Plot no. 21, Guttala Begumpet,
Hyderabad – 500081
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Satyanarayana Rao, V.C
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. G.K. Deshpande
QUORUM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT
AND
SRI R. LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH Day of JUNE, TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Oral Order : ( As per Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao , Hon’ble Member )
01. The complainant is the appellant. He has filed the appeal questioning the order of dismissal of the complaint in C.C.No. 231 of 2012.
02. The brief facts of the case as seen from the averments of the complaint are that the appellant stood as guarantor for repayment housing loan of Rs.12,00,000/- availed by his son an daughter-in-law from the respondent-bank. The appellant’s son availed the loan on 17.09.2008 under loan account bearing number 30817210001812 and the loan was repayable in monthly installments. The respondent addressed letter 19.10.2012 claiming arrears to the tune of Rs.21,720.75 ps. The appellant through his representations dated 20.04.2012 and 14.05.2012 and notice dated 23.08.2012 requested the respondent to revert to the previous EMI pattern for which there was no response from the respondent-bank.
3. The appellant submitted that the borrowers requested the respondent-bank to furnish the details of the loan for the purpose of their claiming deduction of income tax and the respondent through letter dated 5.01.2009 informed them that an amount of Rs.96,750/- was paid during the period from 1.04.2009 to 31/03.20009. The respondent issued letter dated 19.11.2010 to the borrowers requesting them to furnish particulars of the stage of construction and reminded them that they had to complete construction of the house within a period of two years, ie., 16.09.2010. the respondent had also informed them that revised rate chargeable is PLR+1% w.e.f. 17.09.2010 and it further informed them that delayed construction of the house would attract penal interest and increase in EMI.
4. The appellant submitted that he informed the respondent about non-completion of the construction of the house and the respondent assured the borrowers that the EMI would be reverted back to original pattern in case they adopt the procedure adopted for construction of the house by the owner of Thotam Anil who availed EMI relief. Accordingly on the instructions of his son, the appellant adopted the procedure followed by Thotam Anil and constructed the house in the same plinth area of 252 sft. as that of Thotam Anil. As the respondent has not extended EMI benefit to the appellant’s son as it was extended to the loan account of Thotam Anil, the appellant filed the complaint seeking relief for reverting to previous EMI pattern.
5. The respondent resisted the claim on the premise that it had furnished the particulars of arrears to the appellant’s son and addressed letter to the borrowers that if the construction of the house is not completed within the stipulated period, the loan would attract penal rate of interest from 17.09.2010 till completion of the house or closure of the loan account. The appellant through his letter dated 20.04.2012 requested the respondent to reduce the ROI and EMI. In response to the query of the head office of the respondent-bank, the appellant thorough his letter dated 14.05.2012 informed that he constructed suitable house with kitchen platform, living space, bathroom cum toilet with mezzanine tiles and overhead tank etc. ,and therefore he is entitled for reduction of the EMI.
6. The respondent submitted that on inspection of the hosue it found that the appellant constructed only a single room with an intention to avail the benefit of reduced EMIs. The entire plot is 568 sq.yards and the size of the room is 252 sft. The appellant has no intention to reside in the single room. The construction of single room with amenities does not fall within the scope of terms of the loan agreement. The respondent has to follow the guidelines of the RBI and the appellant and the borrower attempted to bypass the norms of the Bank to get the EMI reduced by showing a single room. The value of construction made by the appellant is insufficient to consider the request for reduction of ROI. The revision of EMI extended to Thotam Ashok is under reconsideration for not following the norms. The appellant failed to follow the norms and he is not entitled to reduction of EMI. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and it has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
7. The appellant filed his affidavit and the documents, Ex. A-1 to A-19 and on behalf of the respondent bank, its Chief Manager V. Venkatachalam, filed his affidavit and the documents, Ex. B1 and B2.
8. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the premise that the borrowers and the appellant had not completed the construction of the house within the stipulated period as a result of which the nature of the loan changed and it held that the appellant and his son attempted to take advantage of the terms of the loan agreement by constructing a room.
9. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the appellant has filed appeal contending that the District Forum has not considered the entire documentary evidence adduced by him and it has failed to consider the negligence on the part of the respondent. The appellant has contended that the District Forum recorded erroneous finding that the respondent refused to reduce EMIs. There was no document filed by the respondent to the effect and the District Forum failed to notice the contention of the respondent that it had flouted the norms in the case of Thotam Anil, the owner of plot no. 53 in the same venture.
10 The point for consideration is whether the order of the District forum is vitiated by mis appreciation of fact or law?
11 The appellant’s son and daughter-in-law availed housing loan to an extent of Rs.12 lakhs on 17.09.2008 and the appellant stood as guarantor for repayment of the loan amount. The terms of the loan agreement provide for the rate of interest, period within which the house has to be constructed, penal interest for delayed construction of the house etc.,. The EMIs comprise of principal and interest. It is not disputed that the rate of interest is 9.5% p.a and the loan amount is repayable in monthly instalments by way of cheques deposited by the borrowers. The letter dated 19.10.2012 from the respondent bank seeking for payment of arrears Rs.21,00,720.00 made the appellant address to the respondent bank series of letters with a request for reverting to the original ROI pattern.
12 It is not denied that the loan was granted by the respondent bank to the appellant’s son and daughter-in-law for purchase of house plot on condition that they had to construct the house within a period of two years and the delayed construction would attract penal interest fom 17.09.2010 till completion of the house and closure of the loan account. The respondent bank through its letter dated 19.11.2010 reminded the borrowers of the likelihood of imposing of penal interest and requested them to furnish the status of the construction of the house.
13 In response to the letter of the respondent bank the appellant addressed a letter dated 20.04.2012 enclosing thereto, encumbrance certificate, valuation report, plan and permission of the house and requested the respondent to reduce the ROI and EMI. During the period from 19.11.2010 till 20.04.2012 the events occurred indicate that the appellant had not completed the construction of the house within the stipulated period of two years resultantly the EMI was enhanced from Rs.15,519/- to Rs.19,100/-.
14 The appellant has sent representations dated 20.04.2012 and 14.05.2012 and notice dated 23.08.2012 seeking for reverting to the original ROI. In the letter dated 14.05.2012 ( Ex. A-6) the appellant had sought for for reduction of ROI on the following grounds:
01.house has all the facilities such as a kitchen platform, living space, a bath room come toilet, with mezzanine tiles and the house flooring is laid with polished Cudapah slabs. The house has a ove head water tank and sump tank.
02.The house is constructed according to Kadthal Panchayat approved plan.
03.The expenditure incurred for construction of the house is about Rs.180000/- ( Rs.160000 + 20000 incidentals). I here with enclosed the agreed cost of the house.
04.I request you to depute the concerned to visit the house at any expenses to ascertain the suitability fo house for livng of single family or not
05.No default in payment of EMI
06.Kindly understand our situation after incurring an expenditure mentioned above without any benefit, anti climax, resultant burden and stress.
15 The head office of the respondent bank declined to extend the benefit of reduced ROI on the ground that the valuation of the house constructed by the appellant was not sufficient and the appellant in his notice dated 23.08.2012 ( Ex. A 7 ) referring to the same benefit extended to the owner of plot no. 53, Thotam Anil, branded it as discrimination as
“ my client states that the reason shown are discriminatory as similar request was approved in case fo Plot no. 53 and not extending the same for plot no. 55 and cannot understand why it was referred to Regional office. This is clear discrimination and deficiency of service rendered to my client in not rendering the services at par with other customer of the Bank/Plot owner after spending Rs.1,80,000/- for construction of house as per the directions of the Bank for reduction in ROI and my client was forced to go pillar to post for the last 4 months, starting from Manager, Advances, Chief Manager ( Redirects the case to RO), concerned executive and his boss in Regional office, till date nothing has happened “
16 The respondent bank addressed letter dt. 27.12.2012 requesting the appellant to submit the details of door number allotted to the property, power connection, house tax demand notice and house tax receipt. In reply, the appellant addressed a letter dated 15.02.2013 enclosed thereto the house tax receipt and electricity bill. Thereafter, he addressed letters 12.3.2013, 14.03.2013, 19.03.2013, with the same request for reduction of EMIs.
17 The respondent bank has declined to revert the ROI on account of the appellant floating the terms of the loan agreement by not completing the construction of the house within the stipulated period and misleading the respondent about the construction of the house. The respondent on inspection of the house found a single room with no person residing in it. It is the contention of the appellant that the respondent bank promised to extend the benefit of reduced EMI which was extended to Thotam Anil and the bank has not kept its promise.
18 The appellant has not denied that he constructed a single room admeasuring 252 sq feet with zink sheet as its roofs in the entire plot of 568 sq yards and the cost of construction is of Rs.88,200/- whereas the value of the land is Rs. 9, 63,900/-. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent bank that the appellant has attempted to gain advantage of the terms of the agreement. The son and daughter-in-law of the appellant were residing at the relevant time in the United States and they being the principal borrowers are not expected to construct a single room wherein neither they nor the guarantor would reside. Viewed from any angle, the appellant is not found entitled to the benefit of reduced ROI.
19 The contention of the appellant that the benefit of reduced ROI which was extended to Thotam Anil should also be extended to them has to be considered in the back drop of the circumstances and the terms and conditions of the loan agreements etc.,. The appellant has not produced any documents in support of his contention in this regard and he cannot seek for the relief without substantiating his plea therefor.
20 The appellant has submitted that the District Forum has not properly viewed the version of the respondent bank that it had extended the benefit of reduced ROI to the case of Thotam Ashok and it had given an erroneous finding that no such benefit was extended to Thotam Ashok. It is true, the District Forum observed that no benefit was extended for reducing the ROI to the case of Thotam Ashok. However, a bare perusal of the written version of the respondent bank would show that the respondent is contemplating to reconsider the decision by which reduced ROI was extended to the claim of Thotam Ashok. The failure of the District Forum to observe extension of reduced ROI to Thotam Ashok does not in any way affect the finding that the appellant failed to comply with the terms of the loan agreement. As such, this Commission is of the view that there are no merits in the appeal.
21 In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There shall be no separate order as to costs.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
Darted :17.06.2014
