DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
……………….
Presents:-
- Sri P.Samantara, President.
- Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
- Smt. S.Rath, Membe
Dated, Bolangir the 29th day of June 2016.
C.C.No.07 of 2015.
Ramesh Chandra Dang, son of Chandrabhanu Dang.
At-Daspur, P.O-Rajendra College,P.S/Dist-Bolangir.
At present working as TreasurerBolangir Head Post
Office, Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
Near Bhagirathi Chowk, Bolangir Town, P.O/P.S.
& Dist- Bolangir.
1.The Assistant General Manager, S.B.I.Main Branch,
2.The Post Master,Head Post office, Bolangir,
At/P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv.for the complainant- Sri A.K.Joshi.
Adv.for the O.P.No.1 – Sri B.C.Pradhan.
Adv.for the O.P.No.2 – None.
Date of filing of the case-15.01.2015
Date of order - 29.06.2016
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
The complainant is a Central Govt .employee working under Postal Department and sanctioned with personal loan of Rs 2,00,000/- ide Personal Loan A/C. No.113422121822 on dt.17.06.2004 with contract interest rate 12.75% per annum.
2. The complainant has executed necessary loan papers along with irrevocable letter of credit .It is also averred, the drawing and Disbursing Officer is the guarantor as per the agreement and have to deduct the installments from the salary of the complainant as per the contract entered with. Further averred, the pay slip issued by the D.D.O. for the month of July 2014 shows, the deduction of last installment has been effected and no outstanding remain to be collected. But advocate notice issued by the O.P.No.1 on dt.31.10.2014 demanding a sum of Rs 47,552/- as due has made suffered mentally and financially and raising deficiency of service. So in the interest of justice, the O.P may kindly be directed not to recover the demanded amount rather pay compensation for the mental harassment with litigation expenses that the forum deems fit. Relied on demand letter, Pay slips, in photocopies and affidavit.
3. In pursuant to notice, the O.P.1 appeared and made the version in submission that the complainant has availed the personal loan and the case has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon.
4. Further contended that the petitioner is not a consumer. The guarantor of the petitioner has not been imp leaded as a party. The petitioner has not approached banking Ombudsman as per the rule, so the complaint is bad in law. The O.P has acted as per RBI guidelines. In view of the Indian Contract Act, this is a matter between “creditor” and “Debtor” based on an agreement so the indulgence of this forum cannot be invoked by the petitioner against the O.P.1 as set forth in the complaint. Hence the complaint is misconceived under law and is liable to be set aside.
5. The O.P also added that the petitioner has been charged with interest 12.75% per annum and agreed to stipulated floating rate of interest as per the policy of the RBI. So charging as per the RBI policy and agreement it is bound on the part of the petitioner.
6. Further contending the drawing & disbursing Officer being the authority has guaranteed repayment schedule/EMI and his duty to deduct the installment from the salary till repay and it is false and baseless, the petitioner has paid full and final payment and also not responded to the advocate notice at any point of time. As to the relevant clause of the agreement the petitioner is liable to enhanced rate of interest as agreed upon dt.10.062014 and due to floating interest even after payment of the last installment as was fixed. There is outstanding a sum of Rs 47,552/- as on October 2014 on the complainant to which he is liable to pay. Prayed that the complaint petition is not maintainable. Relying on personal loan Application form, Arrangement letter, Personal loan Agreement, and Irrevocable letter of Authority by D.D.O and Advocate Notice in photo copies.
7. Heard and perused the materials on record..
8. We observe, the O.P.1 is in admission that the loan was availed by the complainant, so as per definition of the provision, in availing the banking service complainant is a consumer. Further the letter No.BR/PBD/581431 dt.31.10..2014 against Account No.113422121822 with running irregular amply arose the cause of action. No barred of limitation on jurisdiction so the case is maintainable.
9. No dispute persists on the amount of loan i.e Rs 2,00,000/- availed but the contention persists on the nature of interest accrued and paid and also dues remain unpaid. The petitioner’s averment is that the repayment of entire loan amount inclusive of interest is confirmed and agreed to the extent of 120 EMI/installments in deduction from the salary, so charging furtherance to that is arbitrarily, excess collection beyond the contract.
10. In the above noted context, we extensively gone through the documents that entered into by the petitioner on the date of loan sanction.
11. Perusal reveals, an application is made in availing of a personal loan on dt.09.06.2004.The arrangement letter clause-2 (Rate of Interest):- reads- “Floating rate of interest” . Interest on the loan will be charged at 2.25 % P.A. below PLR/SBAR/SBMTLR, which is currently 10.25% P.A (the current effective rate being 8% P.A) with quarterly rests. The rate of interest is subject to revision from time to time and you shall be deemed to have notice of changes in the rate of interest whenever the changes in PLR/SBAR/SBMTLR are displayed notified at/by the branch/published in news paper/made through entry of interest charged in the pass book/statement of account sent to you etc. The bank has the option to reduce or increase the EMI or extend the repayment being consequent upon changes in PLR/SBAR/SBMTLR. In the event of default in payment or any irregularity in account the Bank reserves the right to levy a higher rate of interest as it deems fit.
12. On such back drop with extensive perusal we do not find any document corroborating to have the branch has notified the petitioner at its notice board published in news paper made through entry of pass book or intimating by way of statement within effected time and same is not adduced by way of document which is a shortcoming on the part of the bank and also as per expressed terms of contract the bank has recover by due process of laws in view of the agreement clause for which in our opinion, the branch is at fault and deficient in rendering service as to the provision of the consumer Protection Act.
13. On perusal of the relied documents of the O.P clearly speaks in availing the personal loan, the account holder hereby agreed that he would abide by the banks rules as indicated in the respective agreements and deeds. Accordingly the O.P has calculated floating rate of interest on the loan amount. Floating rate of interest as charged is a general public policy. Therefore as the bank in accordance with general directions of RBI and general policy decision ensured steps partly complainant is bound to abide by it as he has undertaken to abide by the terms and conditions relating to his personal loan account at the time of opening /entering into contract and he has also violated breach of agreement.
14. From our aforesaid discussion, we have come to the irresistible conclusion on going through the relied documents by both the parties, found fault with the complainant as well as with the O.P.No.1. as they both have not adhered to the guidelines, terms and conditions of the loan. The complainant has already paid the EMI without floating rate of interest. Therefore, the unpaid dues till date of filing of the case,i.e Rs 47,552/-, said to be the rising in interest, has not been paid by the complainant to the bank. When we have hold fault at both the end, both are liable to bear the amount fifty, fifty percent.
Hence ordered.
ORDER.
We hereby direct the complainant to pay Rs 23,776/- within one month from the date of this order failing which interest @ 12% per annum will be levied by the O.P.No.1 till realization. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the parties are to bear their own cost.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2016.
(S.RATH) (G.K.RATH) (P.SAMANTARA)
MEMBER MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
