This is a petition / complaint filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The case of the petitioners is that she is Assistant teacher of Maharaja High School having salary-savings A/c No:5443010104247 with O.P.No:1/B.G.V.B Bank, Raiganj Branch & on her application dated 19.01.2007 O.P.No:1 sanctioned composite loan of Rs.4,00,000/- at rate of interest fixed 9% repayable in 180 EMIs of Rs.4041/- from March, 2007 to February, 2022 and loan A/c No:GHRL/03/07 was opened by O.Ps. The complainant accepted the procedure of auto deduction from her said salary savings A/c for repayment of loan EMIs and there was no default of EMI due to reason “insufficient fund”.
That the complainant surprisingly found that EMI is not deducted from her account from November, 2007 to March, 2008, she contacted O.P.No:1 to know the reason behind non-realization of EMIs but it can’t be able to give proper justification and it gave assurance to her that the non-realized EMIs shall be adjusted at the last without any interest and fine.
That she also found that in spite of having sufficient balance in her account O.P.No:1 did not deduct the EMI of April, 2009, October, 2009, February, 2010 & November, 2011. The irregularities of deducting of EMI resulted non-realization of 09 EMIs and it is the part of negligence of O.P.No:1 and O.P.No:2 & 3 are also responsible.
That as per sanction letter loan amount will completely be repaid in 180 EMIs and 179 EMIs up to September, 2022 have been deducted from her salary-savings account.
That the complainant received notice dated 21.07.2022 & 31.08.2022 from the bank having no proper information about the dues amount or any clarification of installments from the loan amount. She surprisingly found that Rs.180,000/- has been deducted on 05.09.2022 from her salary-savings account without any proper intimation by the O.Ps.
That O.P.No:1 without prior intimation to the complainant and without issuing letter deducted excess amount & when she met the O.P.No:1 it explained that excess amount is the re-adjustment of loan interest. Being not satisfied on 21.09.2022 she submits a written application to the office of O.P.No:1 for re-adjustment but it did not take nay step. She intimated O.P.No:2 by written application enclosing loan related documents on 23.09.2022 for re-adjustment but it also did not take proper step. So the O.Ps are liable for deficiency of service, she thus pray for order directing the O.Ps to refund excess amount Rs.1,80,000/- deducted on 05.09.2022, stop deducting EMI from next month & close the loan account, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment, mental pain & agony and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.
O.Ps contested the case by filing W.V admitting that the complainant being salaried women availed house repairing loan on 05.02.2007 of Rs.4,00,000/-, with the then 9% annual interest on monthly rest basis and calculated for the periods of 180 installments up to February, 2022. Calculation is done under presumption that the installment should be paid or adjusted within 1st day of the next month due and the borrower should have sufficient money with her salary account from where it would be adjusted.
That due to subsequent increase and modification of interest rate under directive of RBI time to time, obviously numbers of installment raises with a prefixed monthly installment amount, as per instruction given to the bank by the borrower. In spite of increase of interest rate (Rs.5,177/- after increase of interest rate), borrower inclined to increase the initial pre-authorized fixed installment amount, as a result numbers of installment raised beyond February, 2022, obviously leads to overdue & in consecutive 03 months overdue & its failure to regularize the said loan, the complainant’s loan account become NPA under the rules framed/made by the RBI on 23.08.2022. This is universal rules in India and no one can escape from the rules as mandated by the RBI.
That in spite of several request to regularize the loan account, Bank issued formal letter of intimation on 21.07.2022 regarding ultimatum of NPA & after mandatory declaration of NPA issued another letter dated 31.08.2022, for probable outcome of NPA includes reminder of recovery as per terms & conditions and acted for such, bank has able to adjust only Rs.1,80,000/- from her salary account where still Rs.1,37,529.05 was overdue up to 05.09.2022 & still raises to continue.
That the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006, w.e.f 1st day of January, 2006, to take effect of any grievances in relation to banking service, by any person shall approach under the said scheme, make complaint under Clause 8 and the authority concern have all power to redress the same.
Instead of clearing the overdue amount complainant issued letter to O.P.No:1 for not to deduct further amount from her salary account at the same time reminding the story of loan clearance certificate. At the moment of receiving such letter O.P.No:1 requested her to immediate clearance of such overdue by received note with the said letter. The complaint is baseless & concocted, barred by law of estoppel, waiver, acquisance & liable to be dismissed.
The point for consideration is:-
- Whether there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps causing loss to the petitioners and / or there by the petitioners may get relief as prayed for?
D e c i s i o n W i t h R e a s o n s
Admittedly, the complainant is an Assistant teacher of Maharaja High School, having salary-savings A/c No:4247 with erstwhile Gour Gramin Bank, Raiganj Branch at present O.P.No:1/BGVB, Raiganj Branch.
It is also admitted that she applied for Gour House Repairing Loan (GHRL) from O.P.No:1 on 19.01.2007 and on 05.02.2007 loan of Rs.4,00,000/- was sanctioned & the bank authorities opened a loan A/c No: GHRL/03/07, interest @9% p.a, repayable in 180 EMIs of Rs.4,041/- from March, 2007 ending on February 2022, to be auto-debited from her above numbered salary-savings A/c.
According to O.Ps Gour Gramin Bank become BGVB Bank under merger of 5 numbers of RRB & said loan account changed to Bangiya Griha Sanrakhan Yojana (BGSY) and new salary-savings & loan A/c Nos become 5443010104247 & 5443300000200 respectively.
It is not disputed that calculation done under presumption that installment should be paid or adjusted within 1st day of next month due & the borrower should have sufficient money with her salary account form where it would be adjusted.
It appears that save and except 9 EMIs i.e for the month of November, 2007 to March, 2008, April, 2009, October, 2009, February, 2010 & November, 2011 up to February, 2022 i.e 171 EMIs of Rs.4,041/- were debited/realized from her salary-savings account & credited against her loan account.
Further it appears that another 06 EMIs of Rs.4,041/- were deducted from complainant’s salary-savings account from March, 2022 to August, 2022, in total 177 EMIs were debited & credited.
Complainant produced passbooks, report on transactions & complaints. O.Ps produced same report on transaction/loan account statement, copies of the notices dated 21.07.2022 & 31.08.2022 issued by the bank to the borrower, with postal receipts, letter of authority by the borrower & consent letter by employer.
The complainant’s case is that in spite of sufficient balance in her salary-savings account the Bank Authority did not deduct EMI & it is irresponsibility on bank’s part. O.P/bank denied said case, thus burden lies on complainant. As EMIs have been realized, may be within due date or within respective month we are not going into the deep in finding whether complainant’s salary-savings account had sufficient balance during the fixed date of deduction or not. From 1st manual passbook we find that in November & December, 2007 her said salary-savings account had no sufficient balance, at least.
Report on transactions show that an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- has been debited on 05.09.2022 from complainant’s salary-savings account. It appears that after such deduction there was still Rs.1,37,529.05 overdue up to 05.09.2022. Undoubtedly, it still raises to continue.
Complainant’s case is that without prior intimation to her & without issuing letter O.Ps deducted excess amount Rs.1,80,000/- from her account and when she met O.P.No:1 it explained that excess amount is the re-adjustment of loan interest.
According to the O.Ps that due to subsequent increase and modification of interest rate under directive of RBI time to time, obviously numbers of installment raises with a prefixed monthly installment amount, as per instruction given to the bank by the borrower. In spite of increase of interest rate (Rs.5,177/- after increase of interest rate), borrower inclined to increase the initial pre-authorized fixed installment amount, as a result numbers of installment raised beyond February, 2022, obviously leads to overdue & in consecutive 03 months overdue & its failure to regularize the said loan, the complainant’s loan account become NPA under the rules framed/made by the RBI on 23.08.2022.
O.Ps submit circular issued by the bank regarding interest over the advances, relevant part of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Master Circular of the RBI for interest rates of advances & directions and Master Circular by the RBI regarding NPA in support thereof.
The loan passbook produced by complainant depicts rate of interest 9% (fixed or floating not mentioned). Sanction letter dated 05.02.2007 discloses serial No:6. Intt. (Subject to any change as per RBI/Bank directives): …….(left blank).
We subscribe O.P’s argument correct, that means rate of interest as agreed may vary as per directive of the RBI time to time and that the major restructure of advances rules were framed by the RBI since 2010, and in consistence of such guidelines of RBI, BGVB (erstwhile GGB) applied such rate of interest as applicable time to time, now 12% pa & in view of increase rate of interest, as the borrower keeps her EMI constant, tenure has been increased & for that reason her loan account runs beyond February, 2022.
The crux of the case whether increase in interest & tenure of loan was/were within knowledge of the complainant or same was informed/intimated to her.
The complainant did not examine herself on dock, her memo of evidence was accepted as examination-in-chief of P.W.1 & the O.P/Bank thus submits questionnaire and reply thereof was submitted on behalf of complainant.
The O.P/bank submits cross-examination of P.W.1 in the form of questionnaires stating that interest rate was changed from 9% p.a to 12% p.a, under approval and directive guidelines of RBI, which were within your knowledge & due to increase of interest and non-changing the pre-authorized amount for deduction your loan account become overdue leads to NPA on 23.08.2022, also in spite of deducting available amount of Rs.1,80,000/- after serving required notices, still present outstanding balance as on 31.01.2023 is Rs.1,17,324.05 + further interest accrued.
The complainant replied that the server should be maintained by the bank authorities and it must be liable for any kind of errors. Further note that the bank has not intimated about the change of loan account, not given any information about the increase in interest rate. Also no proper acknowledgment for details were shared about the outstanding dues in the letters dated 23.08.2022 & 31.01.2023.
Letter dated 21.07.2022 in Re:Reminder to regularize the credit facility granted to complainant, runs as- It transpires from our record that the credit facility granted to you by bank on 05.02.2007, once turned into non-performing asset & upgraded later on, will be turning into NPA once again. You are requested to regularize the account to rescheduling of the loan or otherwise. Postal receipt is produced.
Letter dated 31.08.2022 in Re: Repayment/regularization of your loan account turned into NPA, runs as- Your loan account has been turned into NPA as on 23.08.2022. You have earlier been requested to regularize the account vide letter dated 21.07.2022. You are once again requested to repay the debt or regularize the loan account immediately otherwise credit balance of your other account will be adjusted with the overdue of the loan account concerned. Postal receipt is filed also.
Though postal track consignment report or AD card is/are not produced by O.P/Bank but once the letter addressed to the complainant in her proper and actual address, the same held “deemed duly delivered upon her and/or duly received by her”, under General Clauses Act.
Thus we find that the O.P did commit no wrong in deducting available amount of Rs.1,80,000/- from her salary-savings account on 05.09.2022, in furtherance of above noted two notices.
Thereafter, the complainant wrote a letter dated 21.09.2022 to O.P.No:1, received by it, having endorsement with request to her to liquidate the debt in full immediately. She stated that after deduction of EMI of February, 2022 her husband met O.P.No:1 for loan clearance certificate (for her illness) but he was not entertained. She became afraid that as and when any amount is credited to her salary-savings account the bank will deduct illegally.
She wrote another letter to O.P.No:2 stating that in spite of payment of 180 EMIs O.P.No:1 illegally deducted Rs.1,80,000/- on 05.09.2022 from her salary-savings account & she apprehend that O.P.No:1 will further deduct from her account as and when any amount is credited to her salary-savings account.
We reiterate that up to August, 2022 in all 177 EMIs of Rs.4,041/- have been deducted/realized from her salary-savings account, still 03 EMIs of Rs.4,041/- stands unrealized on said rate.
As the rate of interest has been changed from 9% p.a to 12% p.a EMIs raised at Rs.5,177/- & in spite thereof she inclined to increase EMI Rs.5,177/- instead of 4,041/-, Nos of installment raised beyond February, 2022 and to meet up the same EMI of Rs.4,401/- have been deducted from September, 2022 to May, 2023 i.e 09 months, out of which EMIs of Rs.4,041/- for September, October & November, 2022 would cover 180 EMIs, as agreed initially. Thus only 06 EMIs of Rs.4,041/- have been deducted in excess, as per initial agreement, due to increase in interest & EMI @Rs.5,177/- but non-increase amount of EMI, which leads to overdue & her loan account become NPA under the rules framed/made by the RBI on 23.08.2022. After deduction Rs.4,041/- on 31.05.2023 closing balance stands Rs.1,01,160.04.
The O.P/bank is covered under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 w.e.f 1st day of January, 2006, to take effect of any grievances in relation to Banking service includes rate of interest, by any person shall approach under the said scheme, make complaint under clause 8 and the authority concern have all power to redress the same. The complainant herein did not avail Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006, pre-requisite of this complaint.
Ld. Advocate for the O.P referred judgment passed in Re:ICICI Bank Ltd Vs Maharaj Krishan Datta & Ors of Supreme Court of India reported in 2015 LawSuit (SC) 1027 where it is held that “bank has to follow RBI guidelines and bank has liberty to act in the matter in accordance with the guidelines so issued by the BRI from time to time. Fixed rate, floating rate and other rates which have been mentioned in the guidelines and the right which has been given to the bank in respect of Floating Reference Rate (FRR) has also to be followed in all cases by the bank”.
He referred another citation in Re:Syndicate Bank Ltd Vs R. Veeranna of Supreme Court of India reported in 2002 Lawsuit (SC) 1257 where it is held that “the rate of interest was enhanced as per agreement between the parties and there was no question of taking separate consent from the borrower again”.
The judgment referred by complainant of SCDRC in Re:Vishnu Bansal Vs ICICI Bank Ltd in Complaint No:163/19 has relied the judgment of ICICI Bank Ltd Vs Maharaj Krishan Datta & Ors (Supra), and held that “in cases of floating rate of interest, the rate of interest on the loan keeps fluctuating to the benchmark it is adopted being the Floating Reference Rate (FRR), this interest rate are changed only after the RBI directs the banks to do so”.
Under above facts and discussion, we are of the view that there exists no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps and consequently the complainant is not entitled to get relief as prayed for.
In the result the case fails.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that C.C-70/2022 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps but without any cost.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
