C.C filed on : 09/03/2016
Disposed on:30.08.2016
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, TUMKUR
DATEDTHISTHE 30th DAY OF AUGUST – 2016
C.C. NO. 44 OF 2016
:PRESENT:
SMT. PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT, BAL LLM.
SRI. D. SHIVAMAHADEVAIAH, B.A. LLB, MEMBER
SMT. GIRIJA, B.A. LADY MEMBER
COMPLAINANT/S:
Saraswathi Bai .L D/o Lakshman Naik .R
Kadaranahalli Thanda, Aregujjanalli Post,
Urdigere Hobli, Tumkur Taluk and District,
Karnataka – 572 140.
(In-Person)
-V/s-
OPPOSITE PARTY/IES
The Branch Manager,
Karnataka Bank Limited,
435/A, Shanthala Complex,
BH Road, Batawadi,
Tumkur – 572 103.
(OP By Sri/Smt. M.Balakrishna Bhat - Advocate)
BY SMT. PRATHIBHA. R.K. - PRESIDENT
-:O R D E R:-
The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging deficiency of service on the part of OP and prays to direct the OP to provide loan clearance certificate along with car documents and key after obtaining the payment of remaining two EMI amount and further prays to direct the OP to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost and such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum deem fit grant in the interest of justice.
2. The complainant submitted that the complainant is holding S.B. Account No.7692500100949901 with the OP’s Bank i.e., Karnataka Bank Ltd. The complainant submitted that she had taken loan of Rs.2,70,000/- in October – 2010 @ 10.5% fixed interest for a term of five years with Rs.5,803/- monthly EMI amount.
The complainant further submitted that she had paid 58 installments, but she has not paid two installments which was due as she was approached the Banking Ombudsmen in October-2015 and Appellate Authority (RBI Deputy Governor).
The complainant further submitted that In February 2015 she checked the loan statement as she wanted to pre-close the loan. The balance was Rs.11,000/- more beyond her committed 60 EMIs. Hence, the complainant approached the OP/Bank, but the OP/Bank has not properly informed the complainant. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the Bank’s Grievance Redressal Mechanism on April 19, 2015. The complainant has not received any response for 20 days. Hence, the complainant approached the Regional Officer Level through ‘e’ mail, thereafter the complainant received an e-mail saying since the base rate of the Bank had changed hence the due amount was raised. The complainant submitted that till that time she has not aware about the base rate.
The complainant further submitted that she and her brother contacted the manager in person and enquired about the failure of communication and service and also requested to give loan clearance after completion of 60 EMIs, but the OP threatened to seize the car if extra amount of Rs.12,000/- apart from 60 EMIs has not been paid. Hence, the complainant raised a complaint No.201516002001066 with Banking Ombudsman on 3rd October 2015 describing the issue, but there was no response.
The complainant further submitted that after sending follow-up mail couple of times, she received an automated mail to her ‘e’-mail stating that the complaint has been rejected and in the meantime the OP has sent two notices to pay the amount nearly Rs.23,500/- and threatened to cease seize car.
The complainant further submitted that she sent an appeal to the RBI Deputy Governor by registered post on 11/12/2015, but she has not received any response and hence due to the act of the OP, the complainant suffered mental agony. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint.
3. Upon service of notice, the OP appeared through his Advocate and filed the version. In the version the OP submitted that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine. The complainant has filed frivolous complaint against the OP/Bank with baseless facts.
The OP further submitted that the OP admitted about obtaining of car loan of Rs.2,70,000/- in October 2010 by the complainant at 10.5% interest, but denied the rate of interest is fixed interest for the term of five years. The OP further submitted that they have not denied the averment made in Para-3 of the complaint, but they have denied the averment made by the complainant that they have not provided proper information as they have clearly informed the complainant that the interest for the said loan account is fixed only one year and the same will subject to change as per the change in the base rate of the bank.
The OP No.3 further submitted that as per the sanction order (Reference No.CPC/SMRS/1581/10-11 dated:26/10/2010 at Page No.3 under column “C” General Condition No.2 and 3 the bank reserves the right to increase the rate of interest on the down grading of the borrower’s credit rating as per bank’s system of rating and the complainant has clearly consented for the said conditions by putting her signature to the said sanction order.
The OP further submitted that according to the Bank’s Rules and Regulations, whenever there is an increase in the Bank’s Base lending rate ratio, the rate of interest charged on the said car loan of the complainant also increases and which will not affect the regular EMI of the borrower, but the same will be debited to the account of the borrower and as such the amount payable by the borrower/complainant increases naturally and the OP Bank has nothing to do anything against the complainant and the OP Bank also publishes the change in the rate of interest in the display board in the office of the OP Bank during the regular ordinary course of business and the OP. Bank is not bound and practicable to intimate the charge in the rate of interest to each customer.
The OP further submitted that the complainant with a mala-fide intention to harass the OP Bank has raised baseless issues and always is in the habit of approaching the authorities one after the other. The OP further submitted that they have issued a notice dated 01/01/2016 to the complainant to pay loan arrears, but the complainant instead of paying the arrears of loan amount threatened the Manager of the OP to register a case against him under the Atrocity Act, which clearly establishes the hostile attitude of the complainant. The OP further submitted that they have filed a civil suit bearing O.S.No.497/2016 against the complainant for recovery of the outstanding loan balance from the complainant as there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP the compensation payable to the complainant does not arise and that among other grounds the OP requested to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.
4. In order to prove their case, both parties have filed their affidavit evidence. The complainant has not marked the documents though produced. The OP has marked the documents at Ex.R1 & R2. Heard the arguments and then posted the case for orders.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings and evidence, the following issues will arise for our consideration.
- Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
- What Order?
6. Our answer to the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.(1) : In the Negative
Issue No.(2) : As per order below
-:REASONS:-
Issue Nos (1) & (2):-
7. It is an admitted fact that the complainant borrowed a loan from the OP/Bank vide account No.7697001600025901 for Rs.2,70,000/- in October 2010 at 10.5% fixed interest for a term of five years with Rs.5,803/- monthly EMI amount. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant had regularly paid 58 installments without any fault.
8. The contention of the complainant is that in February 2015 she checked the loan statement as she wanted to pre-close the loan, it shows Rs.11,000/- more beyond her committed 60 EMIs. Hence, the complainant approached the OP/Bank for clarification with regard to excess amount of Rs.11,000/-, but the OP/Bank has not properly informed about excess amount of Rs.11,000/-. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the Bank’s Grievance Redressal Mechanism on April 19, 2015, but there also the complainant has not received any response. Hence, the complainant approached this Forum for redressal her grievance.
9. Per-contra, the OP contended that as per the loan sanction order (Reference No.CPC/SMRS/1581/10-11 dated:26/10/2010 at Page No.3 under column “C” General Condition No.2 and 3 the bank reserves the right to increase the rate of interest on the down grading of the borrower’s credit rating as per bank’s system of rating and the complainant has clearly consented for the said conditions by putting her signature to the said sanction order. The OP further contended that according to the Bank’s Rules and Regulations, whenever there is an increase in the Bank’s Base lending rate ratio, the rate of interest charged on the said car loan of the complainant also increases and which will not affect the regular EMI of the borrower, but the same will be debited to the account of the borrower and as such the amount payable by the borrower/complainant increases naturally and the OP Bank has nothing to do anything against the complainant and the OP Bank also publishes the change in the rate of interest in the display board in the office of the OP Bank during the regular ordinary course of business and the OP/Bank is not bound and practicable to intimate the charge in the rate of interest to each customer.
10. From the pleadings and documents produced by either of the parties that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPS. Admittedly, the complainant availed a car loan from the OP/Bank for an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- in October 2010 for the term of five years. She paid the EMI up-to 58 months regularly and opted for pre closure of loan. The OP/Bank asked her to pay an amount of Rs.11,000/- after excluding balance of two monthly EMIs.
11. Admittedly, the complainant had opted floating interest and accordingly whenever there is an increase in the bank base lending rate ratio, interest also would be changed. Admittedly, the Bank rate of interest changed and the Bank had to demand enhance rate and therefore the complainant had to pay Rs.11,000/- excluding EMI of two months. The said fact also has been displayed on the notice board. Further, the complainant had lost sight on the fact that there is discrimination in the Bank interest. Further, as per the sanction order dated 26/10/2010 at Page-3 under column “C” General Condition Nos. 2 & 3 that the Bank had right to increase the rate of interest. Further, the complainant after perusal of the terms and conditions had signed the sanctioned order. Hence, the OP acted as per the sanction order and therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP. Further in the instant case, the correspondence made between the complainant and other Authorities, is of no consequences. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R:
1. The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.
2. Both parties are directed to bear their own costs.
3. Supply free order copy to both parties.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, then corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th Day of AUGUST 2016).
LADY MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Tss
