CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 14th day of November, 2017
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT Date of filing:23/07/2016
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER
: SRI.V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER
CC/105/2016
1.V.Afsal,
S/o.Veera Sahib Rawther,
2. A.Veera Sahib Rawther
S/o.Ali Rawther : Complainants
3. T. Mumthaz,
W/o.Veera Sahib Rawther
All are Residing at “Anugraha”,
Athaloor, Kodunthirapully P.O,
Palakkad-678 004.
(Adv.K.Lakshminarayanan)
Vs
- Branch Manager,
M/s.Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd.,
Kodunthirapully Branch, Kodunthirapully P.O,
Palakkad 678 002. : Opposite parties
- Chief General Manager, Head Office,
Dhanalalakshmi Bank Ltd.
Dhanalakshmi Buildings,
Naicanal, Thrissur P.O,
680 003.
(Adv.T.Reena)
O R D E R
By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
Brief facts of the complaint.
The 2nd and 3rd complainants had applied for an educational loan with the opposite parties for the purpose of education of the 1st complainant. The opposite parties sanctioned Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakh only) on the basis of the guarantees given by the 2nd & 3rd complainants. Out of the sanctioned amount of Rs.6,00,000/-the complainant had availed only Rs.4,51,600/-(Rupees four lakh fifty one thousand six hundred only). The complainants are the lessors of the building in which the opposite party bank is working. On getting the bank statement regarding the outstanding amount due to the loan transaction it is seen that the bank has charged 20% interest on compounding basis and treated the loan as general advance. Further, the interest is charged for Rs.6,00,000/-where as the amount withdrawn is only Rs.4,51,600/-. According to the complainant, the rate of interest charged is exorbitant and is against Reserve Bank of India and Government of India Rules and guidelines in issuing educational loans. The loan taken is only Rs.4,51,600/-but the interest is taken for Rs.6,00,000/-. On seeing this the complainants made complaint to the opposite parties that they had remitted certain amount to the loan accounts as reverse entry (Rs.87314.42 on 19/02/2012). Even after this the bank took excessive rate of interest. The complainants caused to issue a lawyer notice to the bank questioning the rate of interest charged. On getting the same the bank replied through email submitting that the bank has charged excessive interest amounting to Rs.55,386.98/-, but refused to credit the amount stating that the complainants did not clear the entire loan amount of Rs.2.83 lakhs. Aggrieved by the action of the bank, the complainants preferred a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman. On the basis of the orders of the Ombudsman it is informed by the bank that they have credited the excess amount into the account of the complainant. The order was not communicated by the Banking Ombudsman. Ombudsman has closed the complaint of the complainant without any further action in the matter and without any personal hearing. Since ombudsman is not a judicial body, the appropriate Forum to redress the grievance of the complainant is this Hon’ble Forum and hence this complaint to the Forum. According to the complainant, the bank has charged excessive rate of interest, penal interest, interest on interest and violated the rules and regulations issued by the Reserve Bank of India and Government of India in issuing the loans for educational purpose. Further the bank has not taken into consideration of moratorium declared by the Government in respect of the educational loans and the bank has not given the legally entitled subsidy granted by the Government on the educational loans. The bank had looted the complainant by taking exorbitant rate of interest and penal interest and interest on interest for the last ten years. If appropriate calculation is done, there will not be any dues to the bank. Action of the bank amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The bank is liable to refund the excess amount if any collected. For the illegal, void and arbitrary action of the bank the complainant has suffered mental and financial loss which they are liable to compensate.
It is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the opposite parties to write off the loan because there are no dues. The opposite party should also be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-as damages for deficiency in service and the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainants. It is also prayed by the complainants to the Hon’ble Forum to grant such other reliefs, prayed by the complainants from time to time which this Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.
The complaint was admitted and notices were issued to opposite parties.
2nd opposite party did not file their version. 1st opposite party filed their version in which they contend the following.
Save as otherwise expressly admitted hereunder this opposite party denies the rest of the allegations and averments mentioned in the complaint. The 1st complainant is the principal borrower and the 2nd and 3rd complainants are guarantors who had applied for an educational loan from the opposite party to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees six lakhs only) and the same was sanctioned and an amount of Rs.2,12,000/-was availed by the complainant, on 22/7/2006, a sum of Rs.1,18,300/-was disbursed to him on 14/06/2007 and further an amount of Rs.1,19,600/-was availed by him on 14/06/2008, charging interest @15% per annum. The complainant has not stated anywhere in the complaint the date on which he has availed the loan amount. It is not true that the opposite party has charged interest for the total amount of Rs.6,00,000/-as alleged in the complaint. The complainant has never lodged any complaint before this opposite party seeking reversal of excess rate of interest at any point of time before 10/12/2015 on which date he had issued a lawyer notice to which the Branch Manager of the bank had sent a reply through e-mail. It is submitted that due to the error crept during the software migration which has been performed automatically when connected to the network, the rate of interest for the aforesaid loan account was charged @ 20% p.a. instead of 15% p.a. automatically by the system. When the same was detected during audit, the opposite party had reversed the excess interest to the tune of Rs.87,314.92/- covering the period from 08/08/2006 to 20/07/2011 and credited into the loan account of the complainant on 19/03/2012. The calculation statement appended herewith would reveal the fact that only simple interest was calculated for the above loan account and not otherwise as stated in the complaint. The loans sanctioned prior to 2009 would not be benefitted by interest subsidy as per rules and regulations. Since the aforesaid loan was availed in the year 2006 no interest subsidy could be credited to the said account. The complaint preferred by the complainant before the Banking Ombudsman was closed with a direction to reverse the excess interest charged on the loan account for the period from 01/01/2013 to 11/09/2015 and an amount of Rs.55,386.98/- was reversed and credited back by the opposite party to the loan account of the complainant on 22/03/2016. Since the loan expired on 22/01/2016, and the complainant defaulted in repayments, the account was classified as NPA and the rate of interest was revised to 17.25% which was inclusive of penal interest @ 2% p.a. It is also stated that the amount of Rs.754.42/-for the period from 22/01/2016 to 22/02/2016 and another sum of Rs.693/-for the period from 23/02/2016 to 23/03/2016 were reversed and credited into the loan account on 23/03/2016. It is submitted that as on the date of complaint the complainant will not come under the definition of consumer and there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and the opposite party. So even if it is admitted for argument sake that the complainant has sustained any monetary loss or damage the remedy is to file a civil suit before a competent court and therefore the dispute raised as such by the complainant cannot be adjudicated by the Hon’ble Forum. It is further submitted that the very same issue has been adjudicated by the complainant before the Banking Ombudsman and the matter has been decided on merits by the learned Ombudsman as early as on 08/03/2016 in complaint No.CTS 2122/2015-16 so that the very same issue cannot be agitated before this Forum and even if there are any grievances for the complainant his only remedy is to challenge before the appropriate Forum as against the order passed by the learned Ombudsman. Under the above two circumstances this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the above complaint and is liable to be rejected in toto. Moreover the complainant has no case that the order passed by the learned Ombudsman in complaint No.CTS 2122/2015-16 has not been complied by this opposite party at any point of time. So this is only a parallel proceeding so as to extract money from the opposite party and it is totally baseless, unfounded and legally unsustainable. It is further submitted that without filing a civil suit before a competent court, the complainant has filed the above complaint before this Hon’ble Forum only for unlawful gain and without any bonafides and only to avoid payment of court fees and other statutory expenses. The complainant has repaid in full the outstanding dues to the bank on 22/09/2016 and closed the account. It is submitted that the complainant has closed the entire loan amount without raising any written protest to the bank which will clearly indicate that the above complaint is only a clever attempt to grab money from the opposite party with malafide intentions. As far as this opposite party is concerned there are no lapses and no deficiency in service can be attributed to this opposite party. So the complaint itself is false, frivolous, vexatious and it is only an abuse of process of law, as contended by the opposite parties.
Therefore it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the above complaint with costs and compensatory costs to this opposite party and issue orders accordingly.
In this case the following issues are considered:
1)Whether there is any deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice from the part of opposite parties?
2)If so, the relief and cost ?
Issues 1&2
The 2nd and 3rd complainants availed an educational loan of Rs.4,51,600/- for education of the 1st complainant out of the sanctioned amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. The DP note delivery letter dated.22.07.2016 was marked as Ext.A2 which indicated delivery of demand promissory note for Rs.6,00,000/- in favour of the Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. bearing interest @ PLR -1 with a minimum of 14% per annum with monthly rests. The agreement for the loan was marked as Ext.A3 which stated that on 22.07.2006 this agreement was executed, loan granted was Rs.6,00,000/- carrying interest at 14% p.a on the daily balance of the loan account etc. The complainant’s counsel sent a lawyer notice to the bank which was marked as Ext.A4 which demanded opposite parties to correct the mistake in the loan account and refund the excess amount collected from the complainant. The 1st opposite party replied through email which was marked as Ext.A5 which stated that the bank had charged excessive interest amounting to Rs.55,386.98/- and the complainant should clear the entire loan amount of Rs.2.83 lakhs. 1st opposite party also gave a reply dated.20.09.2016 to the complainant’s letter dated.09.09.2016 which was marked as Ext.A1 which mentioned that the amount to be paid as on 20.09.2016 for closure of the educational loan was Rs.3,11,660/-. According to 1st opposite party they have not charged interest for the total amount of Rs.6 lakh as alleged by the complainant in his complaint. As per Ext.B1, it is stated that the 1st complainant is the principal borrower and the 2nd and 3rd complainants are the guarantors in respect of educational loan from the 1st opposite party for Rs.6 lakh and amounts availed by the complainants were Rs.2,12,000/- on 22.07.2006, Rs.1,18,300/- on 14.06.2007 and Rs.1,19,600/- on 14.06.2008. According to the 1st opposite party the complainant has not stated anywhere in the complaint the date of his availing loan amount. The rate of interest for the said loan was charged at 20% p.a automatically by the system due to the error crept during the software migration. 1st opposite party also contends that only simple interest was calculated on the disputed loan account and not otherwise, which was stated interest calculation statement marked as Ext.B2. Since the said loan was availed in 2006 no interest subsidy can be credited to the said loan account vide Ext.B3 which is a circular on interest subsidy and states that the interest subsidy scheme is applicable from 01.04.2009 for educational loan availed from 01.04.2009 onwards. The loan amount taken starting from the academic year 2009-10 shall only be covered under the interest subsidy scheme. 1st opposite party also contends that the complainant defaulted in repayments and therefore his loan account was classified as NPA and the rate of interest was revised to 17.25% which included 2% penal interest. Hence, opposite parties contend that there is no deficiency in service on their part and pray that this vexatious complaint may be dismissed.
In this connection the deposition by the 1st opposite party as DW1 before this Forum should also be noted: “R§Ä sImSp¯ loan agreement {]Imchpw, promissory note {]Imchpw 14% simple interest BWv. rate of interest fix sNbvXncp¶Xv. ]t£ AXv 15% {]Imchpw, 20% compounding rate {]Imchpw interest IW¡m¡nbn«pv. XpS¡w apX A§ns\ kw`hn¨n«pv. Rate of interest Iq«nb hnhc¯n\v complainant \v individual notice sImSp¯n«nÃ. 07.07.2011 apX 31.12.2012 hscbpÅ ImeL«¯n F{X rate of interest BWv FSp¯ncn¡p¶Xv F¶p ImWn¡p¶ statement lmPcm¡nbn«nÃ. 18.5% rate Bbncp¶p prevailing rate of interest. Rate of interest IcmÀ {]Imcw 14% BWv fix sNbvXncp¶Xv.”
From the allegations and contentions and the documentary evidences produced before this Forum, we understand that the opposite party bank has charged excessive rate of interest on the educational loan availed by the complainants. It is seen that as against the agreed rate of interest on educational loan availed by the complainant, higher rate of interest and penal interest have found to have been charged by the opposite party bank on the educational loan availed by the complainants. Further it is also observed that in the DP note delivery letter interest rate is stated as 14% p.a on monthly rests while in the loan agreement it is stated that the loan will carry interest at 14% p.a on the daily balance of the loan account. We also view that only after receiving direction from the Banking Ombudsman the opposite party bank reversed the excess interest charged on educational loan account of the complainant for the period from 01.01.2013 to 11.09.2015. Again the 1st opposite party has admitted that, while deposing before this Forum as DW1, no notice has been sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant for increasing the rate of interest. Taking in to consideration all the above facts, we view that opposite parties are liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Above all, we also observe that the complainant deserves compassionate approach from the opposite parties regarding repayment of educational loan and interest rate charged on the said loan, which in this case is not seen adopted by the opposite parties towards the complainant.
For all the above reasons we view that opposite parties are seen to have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The result is that complaint is allowed.
We order that the 1st and 2nd opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by them and for mental agony suffered by the complainants along with Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards cost of proceedings incurred by the complainant.
This Order shall be executed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order; failing which interest @ 9% per annum on the total amount due should also be paid to the complainant from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 14th day of November 2017. Sd/- Shiny. P.R
President
Sd/-
Suma. K.P Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Photo copy of letter dated.20.09.2016 sent by opposite party to the complainant for
closing the educational loan
Ext.A2 - Photo copy of D.P Note Delivery letter dated.22.07.2006 issued by opposite party to
the complainant
Ext.A3 - Photo copy of Agreement for term loan
Ext.A4 - Photo copy of Registered lawyer notice dated.14.12.2015 issued by the complainant’s
advocate to the opposite parties
Ext.A5 - Photo copy of email Reply dated. 13.01.2016 issued by opposite parties to the
complainants
Ext.A6 - Photo copy of Notice dated.20.08.2016 sent by opposite party to the complainants
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1 - Photo copy of account statement
Ext.B2 series - Photo copy of interest calculation statements (6 page)
Ext.B3 - Circular No.CMRG/013/2009-10 dated.16.07.2010 of Dhana Lakshmi Bank Ltd,
Corporate Office, Thrissur showing guidelines on Interest subsidy for the period of
Moratorium of Educational Loan
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
DW 1 - Shyam Prasad.R
Cost
Rs.5,000/-
