West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/76/2016

Srinarayan Chowdhury - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, SBI, Kotasur Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Kr Achatya

10 Oct 2018

ORDER

The case of the Complainant Sri Narayan Chowdhury that he is a defense personnel and he applied for house building loan before the opposite party Bank and the opposite party Bank sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 3,40,000/- along with an SBI Life Insurance Premium of Rs. 12,637/- on flat rate @ 8.5% subject to repayment in 180 easy installments in 180 months.

It is the further case of the Complainant that he paid the EMI regularly and he paid 112 installments @ Rs. 3530/- i.e Rs. 3,52,637/- approximately and the Op is entitled to get Rs. 3,52,637/- @ 8.5% (Flat rate) since the date of disbursement of loan as per terms and condition. That the complainant paid the installments/EMI as per terms and condition, but the principal is not reducing and the balance amount showing more than the actual dues.

It is the further case of the Complainant that he submitted several representation but no effect. That on 13/08/2013 bank authority intimated the Complainant through a letter that the technical pattern of his loan repayment is that from the 1^st installment of 87^th repayment installment 76% of EMI goes to interest box and 24% of EMI goes to the principal box and at the time of 90^th installment amount of principal and interest get even, but all this procedure was not adopted till payment of 100 above installments On 09/12/2013 and 26/06/2014 he submitted representation to rectify the EMI. But in the month of July 2014 the Complainant came to learn though a requested details No. 13742982 dated 27/08/2014 that the EMI of the complainant has been increased in to Rs. 5502/- instead of Rs. 3530/-. But the duration of loan will be remain same and it was also mentioned that after repayment of full 8 years still outstanding Rs. 3,51,000/- whereas bank statement shows 3,09,682/- On 29/10/2014 he again submitted representation to settle his loan after charging interest 8.5% P/A but no effect.

It is the further case that the Complainant used to deposit Rs. 27,672/- through year by 12 installments as principal against his HBL A/C being No. 11895257365 that will be revealed from a certificate issued by State Bank of India, Kotasur Branch on 27/09/2014. That the complainant deposited installments more than nine years and as such he deposited principle Rs. 37,627X 9= Rs. 2,48,643/- or more than that, but the statements of account of the aforesaid HBL A/C of the complainant is showing Rs. 3,51,000/- as outstanding dues. But the complainant could not pay 2/3 installment as he was in financial crisis due to his illness.

It is the next case of the Complainant he collected some net copy of State Bank of Group Desk from where it will be revealed that due to the laches of O.P or their computer system the complainant is being harassed and his HBL A/C has been declared as NPA inspite of making payment within the due time. That the complainant is in service of defense under the Union of India posted at Assam and he had been to deposit the EMI at the SBI situated within the Assam, but the system is not taking the EMI as the HBL of the complainant has been declared as NPA (non-performing Asset).

           

It is the further case of the complainant that lastly on 17/12/2015 he submitted a request to the O.P to rectify the discrepancy in his HBL account but they did not take any step.

Hence this case for directing the O.P to determine the amount of principal against his HBL account No. 11895257365 has already been paid and then fixed actual dues lying in the said account and to directed to the O.P to charge interest @ 8.5% P/A and no further interest be charged out of contract and to directed the O.P to declare that the HBL is not NPA and /or without NPA.  

The O.P HBI Kotasur Bank has contracted the case by filing the written version denying all material allegation in the complainant and contending interalia the case is not main table and the complainant  has not case of action to being this case.

It is the specific case of the OP/Bank that the story of making payment of EMI is not at all true as from the statement of loan of Borrower is clearly evident that the petitioner never regularly deposited EMI of Rs. 3530/-. More over the petitioner since from the date of disbursement of the loan and its repayment once and often defaulted in making payment and due to prolong non-payment of regular payment of EMI the system has voluntarily increased the EMI in order to adjust repayment schedule of loan.

It is the further case of the OP/Bank the Bank has now made correspondences to the borrower and clearly asked the borrower either to shift the loan in new rate of interest or to close the loan account as it has been embodied in the Arrangement Letter “Interest on the loan will be charged at 8.5% P.A on daily reducing balance at monthly rests. SBI may at its discretion stipulate the periodically of computation of interest. The borrower has been advised to deposit immediately Rs. 56264/- into the loan account. Further, he has also been intimated that Housing Loans at fixed interest rates are no longer in existence and the borrower has to switch to current floating interest rate linked to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Fund Based Lending Rate), otherwise the borrower has to close the loan account by paying the entire dues.

Ultimately the OP/Bank prayed for dismissal of the case. With costs.

Point for determination.

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.?
2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

During the trial the complainant Sri Narayan Chowdhury has examined himself as P.W.1 and some documents have been submitted by him.

 The Op/Bank examined Chanchal Bhattacharya, field officer as OPW. The OP has also filed same documents.

Point No.1:: Evidently the complainant has a SBI Account in Op/Bank and he took HBL loan from said Bank.

So, the complainant is consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P. Act.

Point No.2:: O.P has Branch Office at Kotasur within jurisdiction of this Forum.

The total valuation of the case is Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost with other reliefs, which is far less than maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-. So, this Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

Point No. 3 and 4:: Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to each other.

It is the case of the Complainant that he took HBL at fixed interest of Rs. 8.5% P/A.

But it the case of the OP/Bank that the Complainant become defaulter and violated terms and conditions of agreement and as such fixed interest of Rs. 8.5% P/A has been increased to 12.55% P/A.

 

But no such agreement between the complainant and Op/Bank has been forth coming before this forum.

Rather OPW 1 Chanchal Bhattacharya field officer of the Op/Bank in his cross-examination admitted that loan was given at the fixed rate of Rs. 8.5%.

He also admitted that initial installment was Rs. 3530/- but they have increased the same at the Rs. 5502/- and the complainant by the filing an application prayed for decreasing duration  180 months as instalment was increase to 5502/-.

We further find from the letter dated 11/02/2015 that the Op/Bank informed their Authority that the home loan account is now showing as a floating rate product with 12.55% intt rate. However as per arrangement letter the loan was sanctioned as a fixed rate product with 8.5% fixed intt. Customer is complaining about increase in ROI and therefore accumulation of arrears leading to be account become NPA. Pls advise how we can resolve the issue and bring the account out of NPA.

We further find that OPW 1 Shri Bhattacharya also admitted in his cross-examination that they imposed extra interest more than contractual interest upon the complainant and the then manger made such mistake.

So it is clear that Op/Bank imposed floating interest of Rs. 12.55% instead of fixed interest of Rs. 8.5% P/A illegally and the complainant is entitled to get declaration that Op is to be directed to charge interest of Rs. 8.5% P/A and no further interest is to be charged out of contract.

We further find that it is the case of the Op/Bank that the complainant defaulted in payment of loan and his loan because NPA.

But OPW 1 Shri Bhattacharya in his cross-examination admitted that complainant deposited Rs. 10,000/- on 25/07/2015 and Rs. 7000/- on 10/06/2015 for avoiding NPA.

He also admitted that since July 2017 the complainant has been paying installment Rs. 5502/- inspite of the pendency of the case.

So it is evident that during pendency of the case the complainant has been paying EMI of Rs. 5502/- and account of the complainant has not become NPA now.

We find that in the present case it is the allegation the OP that the complainant is defaulter in payment and interest of his account was increased.

 But it appears from the latter dated 26/02/2014 send by the Op/Bank that TL/HBL ACCOUNT NO: 11895257365 DATED: 23/02/2006 HAS BEEN GOOD REPAYMENT TRACK. BUT FURTHER TO OUR REQUEST NO: 12120348 WE BEG TO APPRISE,:-EVEN AFTER EIGHT YEARS OF THE LOAN THE OUTSTANDING IS SHOWN NEARER TO THE LIMIT SANCTIONED. REAPYMENT AMOUNT OF LAST EIGHT YEARS IS NOT REFLECTED INTO THE ACCOUNT.

BORROWER IS WORRIED WITH HIS UNREASONAL OUTSTANDING AND LIKELY TO GO REDRESSAL FORUM. WE HAVE NO STAISFACTORY ANSWER TO HIS WORRIES. PLEASE HELP US TO FIND THE LEGITIMATE CAUSE OF SUCH FIGURES. LAST EMI AMOUNT IS ALSO SHOWN Rs: 120922/- IT IS ALSO RIDICULUOUS. PROBABLY, THERE IS SOME MIGRATORY MISTAKE IN THIS CASE. KINDLY HELP US TO SORT OUT THIS CHALLENGE.

So considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of above made discussion we find that the OP/Bank has already admitted that there is gross anomaly in their statement of accounts, which amounts to deficiency and service and we think that the OP/Bank is to be directed to fix actual dues lying in the said account after adjusting entire payment made by the complainant in the meantime, charging interest amount to 8.5% P/A with further direction to the OP/Bank not to charge any further interest beyond the agreement.

Accordingly both the points are decided in favour the complainant.

 

Thus the case succeeds.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

         that C.F case No. 76/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest with litigation cost of Rs. 2000/- payable to the complainant.

The Op SBI Kotasur Branch is directed to fix actual dues lying in the said account after adjusting entire payments made by the complainant in the meantime, charging interest amount to 8.5% P/A with further direction to the OP/Bank not to charge any further interest beyond the agreement.

It also declared that the HBL account is now not NPA.

The OP/Bank is directed to comply the order within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order as per law and procedure.

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.