By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

 

Complaint in short is as follows:-

1. The complainant availed housing loan of Rs.5, 21,238/- from the first opposite party vide loan No. 339906650013169. At the time of availing it was agreed 8.5% interest for the loan amount for the initial 3 years and thereafter 4th year onwards there will be hike of interest at the rate of 2.5%.

2. On 06/07/2010 onwards the complainant was directed to remit Rs. 5,654/- per month about 150 installments. The loan repayment was required to commence from 06/07/2010 but the complainant started to repay loan the amount from 2010 February itself. There was no default from the side of complainant in repayment. The complainant submitted he remitted 157 installments up to 2023 February and out of the instilments 38 Installments were Rs. 5,250/- each from 2010 February up to 2013 March. From 2013 April onwards the complainant remitted rupees 5700/- each per month up to 2023 February. The complainant submitted that he remitted 7 instalments excess against assured number  of installments  and out of them 119 installments remitted 46 rupees in excess as agreed to be remitted. Even then during 2023 January the opposite parties directed the complainant to remit a further amount of 1,23,741/.68/- rupees. The opposite party issued a letter demanding the same dated 06/01/2023. 

3. Then it was learned the opposite party collected 10.5% interest from 25/03/2021 and in between the opposite party collected 2%, 2.5% interest in addition to the normal rate of interest. The complainant submitted that the opposite party never intimated the complainant about the collection of excess interest. The complainant submitted the act of the opposite parties amounts unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant submitted the act of the opposite parties resulted mental agony and disgrace among the public. Hence the complainant prayed compensation form the opposite party. 

4. As per the agreement the complainant was liable to remit 150 monthly installments of Rs. 5,654/- from 06/07/2010 and thus the total amount to be remitted was Rs. 8,48,100/-. But the opposite party collected an amount of Rs. 8, 98,474/-. It is further submitted the opposite party demanded additional amount of Rs. 1, 23,741.68/-.  The complainant submitted that the opposite parties liable to refund the excess amount of Rs.50, 374/- collected from the complainant and also liable to lift the claim Rs. 1, 23,741.68/-. The complainant further submitted that due to the act of the opposite parties caused the CIBIL score adversely of the complainant.  The complainant submitted that he apprehended in case the bank report as waived the claim of Rs.1,23,741.68/- will definitely affect again the CIBIL score of the complainant. Hence the prayer of the complainant is to refund the excess amount collected from the complainant along with 12% interest and also direct to declare that the complainant is not liable to pay Rs. 1, 23,741.68/- rupees to the opposite party. It is further sought direction to the opposite parties not to report waving the claim 1, 23,741.68/- rupees to the third opposite party and in case it is reported direct the third opposite party to remove the same from the report. The complainant further prayed to take appropriate steps by opposite parties to remove the changes made in the CIBIL authority report. The complainant prayed compensation of 2, 00,000/- rupees with 12% interest due to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties. The complainant also prayed cost of Rs. 35,000/-.

5. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties one and two filed version denying the entire averments and allegations in the complaint. The third opposite party though appeared in the proceedings did not file version within the statutory time limit. Hence the version of the third opposite party did not consider by the commission. 

6. The first and second opposite parties denied the entire averments and allegations in the complaint. According to opposite parties the complaint is not maintainable under the consumer protection act and there is no deficiency of service from the side of opposite parties. The opposite parties admitted that the complainant has taken housing loan with loan account No.339906650013169 on 06/01/2010 for Rs.5, 21,238/- @8.5% for the initial three years. It is submitted hat the complainant has admitted that after 3 years as per the agreement the rate of interest will be varied. 

7. The opposite party submitted that the complainant has taken the loan after fully knowing the rate of interest and term of EMI and thereafter executed the loan agreement. The complainant has admitted in the agreement that he is liable to pay the revised interest as fixed by the RBI from time to time. The opposite parties denied the allegation that the opposite parties misrepresented the rate of interest and the term of EMI. The term of EMI increased only because of the revised rate of interest fixed by the Reserve bank of India which he was agreed to pay as per the loan agreement. As per the loan agreement the complainant has to pay Rs. 1, 23,741.68/- for clearing his loan transaction. 

8. The opposite parties submitted as per the loan agreement executed by the complainant in favor of the bank he was ready to repay the loan amount and interest as fixed by the RBI from time to time. The opposite parties denied the allegations that the bank is changing the rate of interest according to their whims and fancies. The rate of interest is fixed as per the rules and regulations of the RBI and the change in the interest rate from time to time are displayed in the website and notice board of the bank. 

9. The opposite party submitted that there is no question of mental agony or hardship or pecuniary loss or cost.  The opposite party had informed the complainant regarding the rate of interest, change in the interest rate and other factors regarding the loan transactions then and there itself. The opposite parties has acted according to the rules and regulations as fixed by the RBI regarding the loan transactions. The opposite parties denied the allegations of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice alleged in the complaint. The opposite parties submitted that they are not liable to pay any compensation or cost as alleged in the complaint. 

10. The opposite parties submitted that the complainant has taken a housing loan of Rs. 5, 21,238/- from the union bank of India which is admitted in the complaint having fixed and floating rate of interest as per loan agreement entered in to by the complainant with the bank. The repayment of instalments is appropriated partly towards principal as per the rules of the bank from time to time further in the loan agreement schedule 1 point IV read as “interest at the rate of minus 2.50 per annum with monthly rests over union bank of India bench mark prime lending rate (union bank BLR) FROM 06/01/2013 till payment of all principal sums dues under this note “. As per the scheme the rate of interest BPLR-2.50 % after the initial three years. From the agreement itself the complainant is aware that the rate of interest will be changed after initial period of 3 years. It is submitted the opposite parties were ready to give the account schedule and statement of the loan whenever the complainant approached the bank and enquired the same and the complainant has admitted that he has already verified the interest statement, but other averments in the complaint relating to these opposite parties alleging the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties are incorrect and denied by the opposite parties. The opposite parties had given all the information regarding the loan transaction as and when required about the loan and so the complainant cannot allege any deficiency on the side of opposite parties. It is further submitted that the complainant remitted Rs. 5,700/- on 10/04/2023 which is after filing the present complaint and the same reveals the loan transaction  is transparent and that is why he paid Rs. 5700/- on 10/04/2023. 

11. The complainant and the opposite parties 1&2 filed affidavit and documents.  The documents of the complainant marked as Ext.A1 to A3 and the documents of the opposite parties 1 and 2 marked as Ext. B1.  Ext. A1 is copy of letter of loan sanction dated 06/01/2010. Ext. A2 is copy of interest report for accounts. Ext. A3 is copy of letter issued by union bank of India, Nilambur to the complainant dated 10/01/2023.  Ext. B1 is copy of housing loan agreement in between the compliant and the union bank of India, Nilambur.

12. Heard complainant and opposite parties, perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration:-

                 opposite parties?

13. Points 1 and 2

14. The complainant herein submitted that as per the terms of agreement he has to repay the loan amount from 06/07/2010 through 150 monthly installments. But the complainant started to repay the loan amount from February 2010 itself. The complainant submitted that he never defaulted the repayment and he paid 157 monthly instalments. The complainant further submitted that he remitted 46 rupees as excess amount in 119 installments. The complainant submitted that even then the opposite party demanding Rs.1,23,741.68/- rupees as arrear amount. Hence this complaint. 

15. The opposite party did not dispute the payment of 157 instalments commenced from 2010 February onwards. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant is liable to pay loan amount with variable rate of interest as per the  direction of reserve bank of India and accordingly there is an arrear of Rs. 1,23,741.68/-. The opposite party produced Ext.B1 the loan agreement executed between the complainant and the opposite party. The purpose of production of document is to establish the right of the opposite party to collect the interest from the complainant as per the schedule 1 to the agreement Ext.B1.

16. The complainant did not dispute the execution of agreement and under taking to repay the loan amount as per variable interest after initial 3 years of issuance of loan amount to the complainant. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party never informed the complainant about the varied rate of interest and arrears at any period of loan transaction. The complainant specifically contended that it is the duty of the opposite party to inform the complainant about the change of rate of interest. 

17. The opposite party contended in the version the change in the interest rate from time to time are displayed in the website and notice board of the bank. Hence it is an admission that the variation of interest rate was not informed to the complainant. The commission finds the allegation of the complainant is genuine that the opposite party have no case the change in the interest rate was informed to the complainant. The opposite party did not produce any document to show that the change of rate of interest was informed to the complainant, which is against the directions of the reserve bank of India. It can be seen that this a loan transaction starting from the year 2010 and ends in the year 2023 i.e. 13 years long transaction. It will not be proper on the side of opposite party to demand huge amount as arrear from the customer after complying the terms of payment without default as contended in the complaint. It is relevant to note that the complainant herein started repayment even 5 months prior to the actual commencement of repayment and he paid 157 instalments against agreed 150 instalments. There is no documents produced by the opposite party to show that there was hike of interest rate and thereby the number of instalments were enhanced and thus the complainant is liable to make payment accordingly. Hence it is apparent that there was gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party bank. The complainant submitted that he already paid an excess amount of 50, 374/- rupees. The case of the complainant is that as per the agreement he was liable to pay Rs. 8, 48,100/- but the opposite party collected 8, 98,474/- rupees. The complainant submitted that the opposite party demanded further amount of 1, 23,741.68/- which is without any basis. The commission finds that the payment of Rs.50, 374/- in excess is not challenged by the complainant at any point of time before receipt of notice Ext. A3. There is no explanation from the side of complainant for making the additional amount of Rs.50, 374/-. At the same time there is an issue that the complainant is liable to pay variable rate of interest for the loan amount. In the absence of proper explanation the commission do not accept the submission of the complainant that the opposite party collected excess amount from the complainant rupees 50,374/-. At the same time the opposite party  failed to inform the complainant  the variation of rate of interest and the liability of the complainant  to pay the excess interest rate and also arrears in due time. Hence the commission is of the view that the opposite party is not entitled the amount of Rs. 1, 23,741.68/- as arrear amount from the complainant. The issuance of Ext. A3 notice and thereby claiming huge amount from the complainant who remitted the entire installments without any default amounts deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties. Hence we find there is reason to uphold the grievance of the complainant as genuine one. 

18. Point No.3

19.    In the above facts and circumstances the complaint stands partly allowed as follows:- 

1) The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to withdraw the Ext.A3 notice demanding arrear amount of Rs. 1, 23,741.68/- from the complainant.  

2) The first and second opposite parties are directed to issue appropriate intimation to the third opposite party that there is no default in the payment of loan amount by the complainant in the loan transaction involved in this complaint. 

3) The third opposite party is directed to make appropriate entries in the CIBIL score in the light of communication received from the first and second opposite party regarding the loan transaction. 

4) The claim of complainant to refund Rs. 50,374/- from the first and second opposite parties stands disallowed.

5) The first and second opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10, 000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant as cost of the proceedings. 

The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, falling which the complainant is entitled 12% interest for the cost amount till date of compliance of this order. 

Dated this 30th day of October, 2024.

Mohandasan. K, President

     Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member

 

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil 

Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A3

Ext.A1: Copy of letter of loan sanction dated 06/01/2010

Ext.A2: Copy of interest report for accounts.

Ext A3: Copy of letter issued by union bank of India, Nilambur to the complainant dated 

            10/01/2023.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil 

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1  

Ext.B1: Copy of housing loan agreement in between the compliant and the union bank of 

              India, Nilambur.

 

 

 

Mohandasan. K, President

     Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member