07/07/15

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT

             This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Barasat, North 24-Paraganas in case no.CC 189 of 2013 against the complaint with the following directions:

“That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.10,000/- against the O.Ps.

O.Ps are directed to receive balance 102 EMIs at the rate of Rs.4,060/- and no further interest can be charged against the loan account by the O.Ps.

For adopting and unfair trade practice and for penning through the word fixed after 29.01.13 by the bank authority O.Ps are imposed a punitive damages of Rs.50,000/- which shall be paid to the State Consumer Welfare fund in this office account within one month from the date of this order.

Complainant is requested to (if he so desire) clear all the balance dues at a time if her finance permits and this Forum hopes that will solve their all problem and if complainant deposits the entire dues within two months without enjoying any further EMIs in that case O.Ps shall dispose of the loan account after receiving and adjusting the same by handing over NOC and by releasing all the documents, papers, property against that loan.

O.Ps are directed to comply the order within one month from the date of this order, failing which further interest at the rate of Rs.300/- shall be assessed per day for non-compliance of the order and violation of this Forum’s order and even penal action shall be started against them under Section 27 of the C. P. Act, 1986.

Let copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties, when applied for.”

            The case of the Complainant/Respondent, in short, is that she availed herself of house building loan to the tune of Rs.4 lakh at a fixed rate of 9% p.a., repayable by 180 EMIs @ Rs.4,060/-.  But suddenly sometime in the last part of 2012 the OPs in a telephone call intimated the Complainant that due to increase in interest rate of RBI, the interest rate in house building loan has been increased.  The Complainant with her husband rushed to the OP No.3 and enquired into the matter and about the rate of interest the OP No.3 Bank did not entertain the Complainant.  The Complainant thereafter received a letter dated 09/01/13 issued by Senior Manager of OP No.3 from which it was found that the OP No.3 in a very clandestine manner did not whisper about the query made by the Complainant, but stated that Complainant’s present rate of interest will be @ 11.75% p.a. and the Complainant had to pay Rs.5000/- as EMI instead of Rs.4,060/- for the remaining 102 months.  For the said reason, the complaint was filed before the Learned District Forum with the prayer for direction upon the OPs to receive the loan amount at a fixed rate of interest as mentioned in the sanction letter dated 20/06/06, that is, 180 EMIs @ Rs.4,060/-, compensation of Rs.1 lakh for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            The Learned Counsel for the Appellant Bank has submitted that the rate of interest was floating one and in the communication letter dated 20/06/06 it was inadvertently noted as 9% p.a. as rate of interest.  It is contended that it was an inadvertent mistake and there was no bad intention on the part of the Bank.  It is submitted that as per the sanction order the rate of interest was 9% floating. 

            The Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the Bank suppressed the material fact, in as much as, as per the communication letter dated 20/06/06 it was fixed rate of interest @ 9%.  It is further contended that the Bank in its letter dated 29/01/13 admitted that in the sanction letter the floating rate of interest was not specified. 

           We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record.  It is the case of the Complainant/Respondent that the rate of interest was fixed @ 9% p.a.  On the other hand, it is the case of the Appellant Bank that the rate of interest was floating @ 9% which was clearly mentioned in the sanction order.  It is the further contention of the Appellant Bank that since it was floating rate of interest as per RBI guideline it was, subsequently, enhanced and communication was made to that effect to the Complainant/Respondent.  We are unable to accept the contention of the Appellant Bank, in as much as, from the letter dated 20/06/06 it is evident that the rate of interest was 9%.  There was no mention that it was floating rate of interest.  Moreover, the Appellant in its letter dated 29/01/13 admitted that the floating rate of interest was not specified in the earlier letter.  Since the floating rate of interest was not mentioned in the communication dated 20/06/06 and the copies of the documents were not earlier supplied by the Appellant to the Respondent, at this stage the Appellant is estopped from contending that the rate of interest was floating one.  Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record we modify the impugned judgment and order as hereunder.

            The Appeal is allowed in part.  The OPs of the complaint/Appellants are directed jointly and severally to receive the loan amount at fixed rate of interest @ 9% p.a. @ EMI of Rs.4,060/-.  After the remaining EMIs are paid within 8 months from this date by the Complainant/Respondent @ Rs.4,060/- the Appellants/OPs of the complaint will hand over all the documents and the NOC to the Respondent/Complainant.  The Appellants will pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the Respondent/Complainant within 45 days from this date failing which the simple interest @ 9% p.a. will accrue on the said amount from the date of default till realisation.  Other directions passed by the Learned District Forum are set aside.  The impugned judgment stands modified accordingly.