BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.464 of 2015

Date of Instt. 30.10.2015

Date of Decision: 17.05.2017

1. Raj Kumar Kataria Son of Sh. Daulat Ram,

2. Smt. Prem Kataria Wife of Sh. Raj Kumar Kataria,

3. Gaurav Kataria Son of Sh. Raj Kumar Kataria.

(All residents of 66, Sat Nagar, Near Sewa Sadan Road, Jalandhar.)

..........Complainants

Versus

1. Andhra Bank, Bastian Adda Branch, Near Fish Market, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

2. Andhra Bank, SCO No.200-201, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its Zonal Manager.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President)

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. Ravinder Manuja, Adv Counsel for complainants.

Sh. IS Bhatia, Adv counsel for OP No.1 and 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint presented by the complainants, wherein alleged that OP No.1 is a nationalize bank, OP No.2 is the Zonal Manager of the bank, which is the controlling authority of OP No.1. Complainants approached OP No.1 for the grant of Housing Loan and the loan limit to the tune of Rs.35,00,000/- was sanctioned vide letter bearing No.1605/16HL/393/457-S dated 26.11.2009 issued by the OP No.1. As per the terms mentioned in the sanction letter, the loan in question was repayable in 180 equal monthly installments. Rs.33,450/- per month for the Ist year, it will be fixed again depending upon the fixation of rate of interest. The rate of interest was 8% fixed for the first year as per special offer for New Housing Loan period of gestation was 12 months. The complainants had been paying the installments regularly, monthly installment was fixed Rs.33,450/- but complainants many times deposited Rs.50,000/- per month instead of fixed amount of Rs.33,450/-.

2. The OP No.1 bank used to receive the excess repayment of monthly installments, but did not give any benefit, rebate to the complainants, the OP No.1 even did not inform to the complainants that no benefit for the excess amount being received by the OP No.1 is being given to the complainants. That OP No.1/bank after the period of one year as stipulated in the sanction letter, without any notice and without taking any consent and even without the knowledge of the complainants changed unilaterally the rate of interest at higher side, thus keeping the complainants in dark, causing wrongful financial loss to the complainants. When this fact that OP No.1/Bank is charging higher rate of interest than prevalent in the other nationalized bank came to the knowledge of complainants, they immediately visited the OP No.1, branch of the bank, to lodge their complaint that OP No.1 is charging excessive/exorbitant rate of interest after the gestation period of 12 months and requested for reversal of excess charged amount to their account and requested for the rectification in this regard, receiving the request of the complainants, the branch manager of OP No.1/bank got the signatures of complainants on a request letter, which was got drafted and typed by the branch manager on 28.07.2015. Complainant received a SMS on his mobile registered with the bank that rate of interest has been changed by the bank from 12.25% to 10% with effect from 16.09.2015 against the facts that it was to be changed from the expiry of the gestation period of 12 months, i.e. 26.11.2010. As per terms of the sanction letter, the rate of interest was to be re-fixed after the expiry of first year, no notice for the re-fixation or change in the rate of interest to be charged from the complainants for the successive years was given and the OPs had been charging exorbitant/excessive rate of interest than the prevalent rate of interest charged by the other Nationalized Bank, for housing loan, during the period under question. Rate of interest is exorbitant/excessive to the tune of 2 ½ % to 3 ½ % per annum. Due to the illegal and unethical practice on the part of the OPs, complainants have been burdened with additional amount which is estimated to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/-, which is required to be refunded /adjusted in the monthly reducing Principal Loan Amount.

2. Complainants approached the OP No.1, manager of the bank to refund/adjust the exorbitant/excessive rate of interest charged from 26.11.2010, without any notice, without taking any consent but the OP No.1 did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainants and deliberately ignored the repeated requests made to this effect and as such the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and the OPs be directed to refund/adjust the excess amount of interest charged from the complainants from 2 ½ % to 3 ½ % per annum from 26.11.2010, which is estimated to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- and complainants are also entitled to the damages to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- for seeking redressal of their grievances and further suffering inconvenience, harassment, mental tension, cruelty and loss of time on account of above mentioned facts and complainants are also entitled to the tune of Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties who filed a written reply whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that with a view to avoid reproduction of each and every allegation from the complaint and traversing the same, suffice it to say that contents and allegations of the complaint which are not specifically admitted here in under and which are against the tenor of this reply may be deemed as specifically denied by the OPs. The OPs say that the averments contained in the complaint are not admitted and each and every statement, submission, contention, pleading and averments contained in the complaint, which is contrary to, or inconsistent with, what is stated in this written statement, as if the same were specifically traversed and denied herein and further averred that the present complaint filed is wholly misconceived, untenable and not maintainable both in law and on facts against the OPs and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine with costs and further stated that the present complaint is barred in view of Section 21 of the Banking Regulation Act. It is further alleged that the complainants have not come to the Forum with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts. The complainants approached the respondent bank with a request for grant of a housing loan and on the request of the complainants, the respondent bank sanctioned a housing loan of Rs.35,00,000/- repayable in 180 equated monthly installments of Rs.33,450/- each with gestation period of 12 months, bearing interest @ 8% per annum fixed for first year subject to change as per bank's guidelines, other terms and conditions as per RBI Guidelines. The complainants executed loan documents and undertook to abide by the terms and conditions contained therein. As per the term of Composite Agreement dated 04.12.2009 executed by the complainants in favour of the respondent Bank, the complainants had agreed to pay interest @ PLR plus 4% i.e. 12% P.A after the first year. The loan was secured by equitable mortgage of Plot No.66 built on area measuring 6 marlas situated at Sat Nagar, Opp. Jain Colony, Jalandhar owned by Smt. Prem Rani. The respondent bank has not charged any excessive interest as alleged in the complaint. It is denied that even after the expiry of the first year, the rate of interest was to be charged at 8% per annum only. There was no commitment between the respondent bank and the complainants that the rate of interest was to be charged @ 8% per annum even after the expiry of the first year. Similarly, there was no commitment between the parties that the bank shall charge interest @ 10% per annum with effect from the expiry of the gestation period of 12 months. The rate of interest has been charged as per the terms of the sanction letter and loan agreement executed by the complainants which have been duly acknowledged and accepted by the complainants and are binding on them. On merits, the averments in regard to taking loan by the complainant is admitted but the remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainants, the learned counsel for the complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Raj Kumar Kataria i.e. Ex.CW1/A alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and further complainant Gaurav Kataria tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW2/A and closed the evidence of the complainants.

5. Similarly counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OW1/A alongwith documents Ex.OW1/B i.e. Sanction Letter and Ex.OW1/C i.e. Composite Agreement and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective party and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. After taking into consideration the arguments submitted by the respective counsel for the parties as well as from the scrutiny of the case file, we came to conclusion that the factum in regard to taking of loan of Rs.35,00,000/- is admitted by the OP. The main allegation of the complainant is only that the OP has charged excessive rate of interest. As per agreement the OP is required to charge interest on the loan amount @ 8%, whereas the OP has charged interest @ 12.25% per annum which is excessive side and in this way the OP has recovered excessive amount of Rs.7,00,000/- by way of additional interest on the loan amount which is illegal and the same is required to return to the complainant.

8. No doubt the counsel for the complainant has referred the copy of statement of account Ex.C-5 but from the copy of statement of account does not depict itself what rate of interest was charged by the OP from the complainant rather the said statement having figure of deposited the installment as well as the loan amount taking by the complainant time to time. Further, we like to refer the copy of composite agreement Ex.OW1/C duly executed by the complainant with the OP Bank, wherein the rate of interest as agreed between the party is 8% per annum which can increase up to 12%, this factum has been mentioned at page No.4 of agreement. It is worth while to mention here that the said agreement is signed by all the complainants, if so then how they can back up from the said agreement and cannot say that any excessive interest has been charged by the OP from the complainant. Furthermore, the complainant himself brought on the file letter of sanction, whereby loan of Rs.35,00,000/- was sanctioned to the complainant, wherein categorically mentioned that 8% interest is fixed for the first year and it will be fixed again depending upon the fixation of rate of interest, means that after one year the rate of interest will be charged from the complainant according to the RBI Guide Lines and if the RBI increases the rate of interest, the OP has automatically increased the rate of interest from 8% to 12.25% per annum and when agreement is already executed by the complainant then further notice/consent of the complainant is not to be required at the time of enhancement of the rate of interest. So, with these observations, we came to conclusion that the complainant has miserably failed to establish on the file that how and under which situation the excessive rate of interest has been charged by the OP from the complainant.

9. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complainant has miserably failed to establish the charges and therefore, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

17.05.2017 Member President