Order-17.
Date-06/05/2015.
Complainant Sri Ayan Ghosh by filing this complaint has submitted that vide arrangement letter issued by the Erstwhile Calcutta Main Branch of State Bank of India dated 08.10.2007, File No. 1095, Home Loan Account No. 30256282183, a Housing Term Loan of Rs. 38,62,968/- was sanctioned to the complainant and the loan was to be repaid in 240 equal monthly installments of Rs. 38,553/- and loan will be disbursed under – Onetime payment to WBDIFC Ltd. of Rs. 37,48,000/- SBI Life Premium of Rs. 1,49,584/- taking the total amount disbursed to Rs. 38,97,584/-.
Between November 2007 and December 2011, a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- was transferred to this housing loan account every month as EMI from the complainant’s salary account being No. 00081140017588 held with HDFC Bank, Stephen House by post-dated cheque and from January 2012 to July 2013, the month amount was transferred by ECS from the same account was Rs. 1,00,000/-.
In view of the total amount disbursed and EMIs paid in and the Bank failed to explain – how the amount outstanding on a Housing Term Loan originally for Rs. 38,97,584/- increased to Rs. 45,00,000/- and the quantum of principal repaid from the EMIs, by month, between November 2007 and July 2013.
Complainant further submitted that the loan account was not set up as Housing Term Loan as set out in the Bank’s arrangement letter and no limit was set on the loan, and no principal was ever re-paid from the monthly EMI paid in by the complainant and the change in the loan or account type was neither communicated to the complainant nor agreed by him. As a result, the complainant had to incur a much higher interest cost and suffer financial loss as the bank did not set a cap on the loan – as a result of which the complainant’s indebtedness increased over a period of time and repaid the principal from the EMIs, as provided in the amortization chart that were paid in without fail between November 2007 and July 2013.
Numerous discussions in person with the officials of SBI Kolkata High Court Branch was held in between October 2012 and July 2013 and some part of which was recorded. Thereafter written complaint to SBI’s Central Customer Service Cell on 13.01.2014 with a reminder on 03.02.2014 but op did not answer.
Even after personal appearance with representatives of the Bank in the Office of the Asstt. Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Kolkata Central Regional Office on 09.07.2014 where the government officer concerned recorded that it is hereby decided that the op will submit a statement of recovery of HBL showing the principal and the interest separately during the repayment of loan on 28.07.2014 and again on 28.07.2014 where the op bank was not able to show such statement.
So complainant prayed for issuing loan amortization schedule, the principal outstanding should have decreased at least by Rs. 4,40,305/- during the period when EMIs were paid and the bank should repay this amount along with Rs. 5,00,000/- for harassment, causing inconvenience and mental stress and the total amount of relief being prayed for is Rs. 9,40,305/-.
On the other hand op State Bank of India by filing written statement submitted that the application is vexatious and fact remains that complainant obtained Home Loan in respect of a loan account No. 3025622183 and total Loan amount was Rs. 38,62,968/- in floating rate of interest and as per terms of sanction or arrangement letter, the complainant was liable to pay the EMIs and complainant is bound to re-pay the loan along with interest and further submitted that the entire allegation is false and fabricated when the loan was terminated the complainant was not a consumer of SBI and in the meeting of Consumer Affairs Department, Bank submitted statements of account but the concerned officer ignored the said documents and complainant filed this complaint for illegal gain.
Decision with reasons
On comparative study of the complaint and written version of op and also considering the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and further considering the company papers i.e. Housing Role Appraiser, it is undisputed fact that loan was sanctioned to the extent of Rs. 38,97,584/- out of that and the said loan would be repaid in equal 240 monthly installments of Rs. 38,553/- and that loan was disbursed onetime payment to WBDIFC Ltd. of RS. 37,48,000/- SBI Life Premium of Rs. 1,49,584/- that is total amount disbursed to Rs. 38,97,584/-. No doubt in between December-2007 to December-2011 a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- was transferred to the Housing Building Loan A/C every month as EMI from the complainant’s salary account being No. 00081140017588 held with HDFC Bank, Stephen House by post-dated cheque fron January-2012 to July-2013, the monthly amount was transferred by ECS from the same account of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
But it is undisputed fact that op/Bank has failed to give any satisfactory explanation from the Housing Term Loan originally sanctioned to the extent of Rs. 38,97,584/- was increased to Rs. 45,00,000/- and the quantum of principal repaid from the EMIs, by month between November 2007 and July 2013.
Fact remains that when EMIs were paid regularly, at that time then invariably along with EMI of principal amount was repaid in between November-2007 to July-2013. But it is shown what is the principal amount was paid and what is the interest amount they paid and that period against payment of said EMIs.
Another factor is that the change in the loan account type is neither communicated to the complainant, nor agreed by him. Then invariably EMIs were properly explained in two heads in principal and interest are not shown in the statement of account. But it is mandatory provision of law that when EMIs shall be assessed, invariably, month by month, the payment of principal and interest shall be shown and thereafter total EMIs shall be determined.
Undisputed fact is that complainant being disgusted foreclosed the loan and cleared the entire amount on 03.08.2013 paying principal amount as well as interest and due to foreclosure, huge interest was assessed which was charged by the Bank which is no doubt uncalled for and in view of the fact, op has failed to produce any foreclosure clause of the Bank which is being followed by the Bank as per guideline and instruction of RBI. But truth is that RBI guideline is always applicable to the Banking Finance Companies like this Bank and fact remains the RBI already issued instruction regarding removal of pre-closure penalty charged by Bank vide its Circular dated 05.06.2012 and that RBI guideline came into effect from the date of the Bank that is issued on 05.06.2012.
It is also a fact that RBI and Nationalised Housing Bank already issued instruction and already repayment of pre-closure or pre-payment on the foreclosure of Housing Loan under the control of the Bank and by that instruction RBI and National Housing Bank already directed to all Nationalised Banks to apply this guideline or circular dated 05.06.2012 w.e.f.05.06.2012 in respect of all Housing Loan and no doubt the present parties Bank bound by terms and conditions and guideline of the said RBI guideline. So, the present Bank cannot charge any pre-closure or foreclosure of the Housing Loan account or charge any penalty and no doubt in the present case op has charged illegally the pre-closure or foreclosure of Housing Loan without applying the circular of RBI dated 05.06.2012 for which in the written statement, they are found a dumb spectator and their defence is found nothing but a defence that loan account has been closed. So, complainant is not a consumer.
But considering the defence of the op, it is found that the Bank has adopted a dishonest path, their officers have no guard, no knowledge about the RBI guideline etc. for which they have failed to give details about the assessment of interest at the time of foreclosure. No doubt it is an approach of a non-sense administration. But it must be kept into the mind of all the Banks that their Bank is not run by the Government capital. But consumer’s investment is the capital if the Bank by investing that amount by different industries and other traders, they are getting huge interest and Bank is run by the interest and profit as earned from the accumulated investment of the consumers. But the Bank employees and their authorities have failed to realise that the consumer economy including Banking economy, they have their no honesty which is proved from the fact that CA & FBP, Kolkata directed the bank to handover the details showing payment of principal and EMI etc.. But they did not submit it, it is no doubt an unruly service. Bank is bound to handover it as per RBI guideline and that has not been made/done.
At the same time in case of Housing Loan up to Rs. 50 lakhs maximum, interest can be assessed to the extent of 10.25 percent and that is highest rate in respect of Housing Loan and in the present case initially the rate was assessed 10.75 percent in the year 2013. But considering the Home Loan rate it is found that op has not produced the revised interest rate of Housing Loan up to Rs. 50,000/- purposely and truth is that in the defence or in their document, there is no such materials to observe that what amount was assessed as pre-closure penalty. But we already pointed out that on the basis of the circular of RBI that pre-closure penalty cannot be imposed, but that has been imposed by the op for which the op is silent and their defence is just like a notorious corporate only to misguide this Forum. Honest approach of the Bank in their written version is absent.
But it is fact that complainant already cleared the loan, but assessment of penalty etc. are not shown in the paper. Considering all the above facts and materials we have gathered that no doubt op acted illegally and as consumer, he was entitled to get statement of recovery of Housing Loan showing principal and interest separately during repayment of loan on 28.07.2014 and also to show separately what is the penalty amount as assessed for foreclosure of loan and no doubt the penalty as assessed for foreclosure of House Building Loan cannot be deducted by the op/Bank and when it has been deducted then it shall be refunded to the complainant as per circular of the RBI as already pointed out.
Truth is that op has harassed the consumer by not supplying the statement in detail of principal and the interest separately during the repayment of loan on 28.07.2014 and at the same time by deducting or by charging penalty for foreclosure of loan, op has acted illegally, violating the circular of RBI as pointed out and by which no doubt op has harassed the complainant.
But considering the total payment and clearance of the loan amount, we are convinced to hold that the Bank Authority has adopted no doubt an unfair practice. Though they are legally bound to supply such statement in details, showing different head of deduction and also the payment made month by month and finally closure of the loan. But that has not been done and practically complainant has been harassed. But we have gathered that after calculation from some documents i.e. statement of payment etc. apparently Rs. 1,10,000/- has been realised as excess amount by the op/Bank and no doubt that amount must be refunded to the complainant without any fail.
In the result, the complaint succeeds.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- against the op/Bank.
Op/Bank is directed to submit the detail of the loan account which is already closed showing principal payment and interest against payment of EMIs till final closure of the account and also shall have to show the penalty imposed for foreclosure of amount and shall have to refund a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order along with litigation cost, failing which for non-compliance and disobeyance of the Forum’s order, op Bank authority shall have to pay penal interest at the rate Rs. 5,000/- per month till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected, it shall be deposited to the Forum.
Ops is directed to comply the order very strictly failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order and for repeated disobeyance of the Forum’s order, proceeding u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 shall be started against the op/Bank for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed.
