The petitioner, Chandana Ghsoh has filed the instant case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party, Branch Manager, Bangiya Gramin Vikash Krishnagar Branch.
Case of the petitioner in brief:-
The petitioner took a house building loan to the tune of Rs. 2.5 lakhs from the OP Bank on 09.02.07 (bearing loan account No. 5533300000483). As per the declaration, undertaking & sanction letter it is evident that loan was sanctioned @9.5% interest for 120 equal monthly instalement & in default this rate of interest will be enhanced by 1%. The EMI was fixed to be Rs. 2290/- & the petitioner was regularly paying the said amount. Now when the petitioner went to the bank to have a bank statement she was taken aback to see that even after paying the EMIs for a considerable long period of time the bank is yet to get an amount of Rs. 2,12,000/- from her. The petitioner met the Branch Manager of the OP bank & want an explanation but the reply was not satisfactory. Then she informed the matter to the registered office of the OP bank situated at 5 R.K.Mitra Lane, Patra Market, Krishnagar & lodged a complaint before the Asstt. Director Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practice. The Branch Manager replied vide letter ref. No. BGVB/SUP/488/14-15 that the petitioner did not understand the terms & conditions of the sanction letter & so went on paying the principal amount only without the interest & the bank did not inform the petitioner regarding the increase in the rate of interest but silently charged the enhanced rate in the petitioner’s loan account & in this way created ambiguity in the loan statement. The OP vide letter dt. 29.10.14 requested the Asstt. Director, CA & FBP to intervene into the matter to resolve the problem but the OP did not accept the proposal given by this authority on 06.01.15. The petitioner claims that the OP bank is not entitled to get the remaining 23 instalment of Rs. 2,290/- & has filed the case to restrain or refrain the OP bank from claiming illegal money by increasing the rate interest in respect of the H/B loan A/C No. 5533300000483 arising out of sanction letter dated 09.02.07 executed by the parties. The petitioner also prays for other relief or reliefs as per principal of fair trade practice.
The OP contested the case by filing written version wherein they have denied most of the allegations made by the petitioner. Accordingly to their version the petitioner has been intimated about the change in internal rate of interest each & every time & lastly even on 22.08.14. They requested her to attend their office to accept the latest terms & conditions of the repayment schedule. It is also their submission that since the petitioner was updating her pass book she was well aware of the increased rate of interest & so the OP has got no laches on their part. Hence, OP prays for dismissal of the case with cost.
From the pleadings of the petitioner, written version of the OP as well as the documents filed by both sides, we frame the following issues for proper adjudication of the case.
1) Whether the petitioner a consumer under the OP?
2) Whether the OP is deficient in service?
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get relief from the OP as prayed for?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
1. The petitioner is a consumer under the OP since she took a house building loan to be repaid @ 9.25% interest p.a. & OP is the service provider being the financier of the petitioner.
2 & 3
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience & brevity.
Sections 2(g) defines ‘deficiency’. Let us quote "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
From the pleadings of the parties, affidavit evidence & documents relied upon by the parties we have to determine whether there was fault or imperfection or shortcoming on the part of the OP bank in connection with loan account No. 5533300000483, INR dt. 11.05.15 in favour of Mrs. Chandana Ghosh. We have meticulously gone through the documents of loan & its conditions duly signed by the complainant & the Branch Manager, on 09.02.07. The property was mortgaged & in three instalments the loan was given as per following table:-
- 1st Instalment of Rs. = Rs. 1,00,000/-,
- 2nd Instalment of Rs. = Rs. 75,000/- &
- 3rd Instalment of Rs. = Rs. 75,000/-
Totaling of Rs. 2,50,000/- .
The EMI of Rs. 2290/- was fixed by the bank / OP & not by the bank. The rate of interest was fixed at 9.25%. The loan was given for building house. Perused the savings bank account of the complainant showing due of Rs. 2,10,107/- on 06.06.15. The pass book also shows that the loan was given on 30.07.11 to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-. But in spite of payment of Rs. 2,290/- per month since 29.08.11. The loan amount as per pass book stands to the tune of Rs. 2,10,107/- as on 06.06.15. This is a clear mistake of calculation on the part of the bank regarding the interest & it is clear departure from the agreed rate of interest.
The complainant went to the Assistant Director, CA & FBP, Nadia Regional Office, Krishnagar but due to non co-operation from the bank the grievance of the complainant could not be redressed vide memo No. 655/DCA/NDA dtd. 26.11.2014. Perused the loan application in the name of the complainant / Chandana Bramha (Ghosh).
It has been argued by the Manager of the bank that the complainant agreed to take loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- on floating interest but the bank has failed to mention in the loan / contractual documents. Moreover, when the EMI of Rs. 2,290/- was fixed the bank manager did not mention / write that the said EMI may vary for any kind of increasing interest. No letter was given by the bank to the complainant intimating increase in of interest.
Perused the examination-in-chief of the OP filed by Branch Manager Arun Kumer Mallick. It was filed on 07.09.15. We have meticulously gone through the affidavit evidence in the affidavit evidence at Para- 5 when the OP bank has denied the allegations of the complainant. It has been admitted that the OP bank is entitled to get remaining 22 instalments @ 2290/- only & sum interest if any. Nowhere in the four corners in the evidence-in-chief & written version we find that the rate of interest has been interested from 9.5% to any higher amount.
In Para- 9 of the written version the Branch Manager has claimed another 22 instalments @ 2290/-. Thus it is clear from the conduct of the OP bank that it was deficiency in service by not communicating the change of interest.
The OP is deficient in their services because they failed to prove that the customer was time to time informed about the change in the rate of interest & so the petitioner was not at fault by paying the EMI of Rs. 2290/- as fixed by the bank. The petitioner is entitled to get relief from the OP.
IPO paid is correct.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/2015/56 be and the same is allowed on contest with cost against the OPs. The OPs are directed to close the loan A/C of the petitioner after getting 120 EMIs of Rs. 2,290/- each & return the mortgaged documents & issue a clearance certificate i.e., non due certification in relation to the loan in question within one month from the date of order. The OPs are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- & litigation cost of Rs. 3000/- within a month from the date of order, in default, the amount of Rs. 8,000/- (Rs.5,000/- + Rs. 3,000/-) will cover an interest of 9% from the date of order till final payment.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
