C.F. CASE No. : CC/61/2013
COMPLAINANT : Nirmal Kumar Roy,
S/o Late Ratikanta Roy,
Vill & P.O. Khamarsimulia,
P.S. Taherpur, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs : 1) Branch Manager
State Bank of India
Ranaghat Branch,
Vill. Ranaghat (Near Old Bus Stand)
P.O. & P.S. Ranaghat, Dist. Nadia
PIN – 741201
2) Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Badkulla Branch,
Vill & P.O. Badkulla,
P.S. Taherpur,
Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI PRADIP KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT
: SMT REETA ROYCHAUDHURY MALAKAR, MEMBER
: SHRI SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 30th APRIL, 2014
: J U D G M E N T :
Nirmal Kumar Roy, the complainant filed the case against Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ranaghat Branch & State Bank of India, Badkulla Branch, Nadia under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The facts of the complainant’s case to put, in a nutshell, are as below:-
The complainant, Nirmal Kumar Roy applied for a house building loan to the OP and accordingly OP No. 1 sanctioned a loan amounting to Rs. 1,90,000/- in the month of May, 2006. Total instalment in requirement was fixed at 144 and the complainant started paying Rs. 2,005/- per instalment (EMI) but the OP No. 1 sent a demand notice on 31.08.11 and 14.12.11 asking the petitioner to deposit the revised EMI to the tune of Rs.2,170/- instead of Rs. 2,005/-. The petitioner has already paid 82 instalments out of 144 instalments as stipulated of the agreement and the petitioner has paid the EMI on regular basis.
The petitioner prays for a direction to non-regularize of EMI received as per demand notice. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the bank to take monthly instalment of Rs. 2,005/- in place of Rs. 2,170/- and return of Rs. 8,920/- which was taken by the OP No. 1 on 28.06.2013 has also been paid. Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and cost of the suit has also been prayed by the complainant.
Written statement was filed by the OP No. 1, State Bank of India, Ranaghat Branch on 11.09.13 challenging the case and the contention of the petitioner. Maintainability of case has also been challenged that the complainant is duty bound to pay the revised EMI of Rs. 2,170/- and the bank was authorized to revise the EMI. According to the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, the rate of interest may vary from time to time leading to revision of EMI. The case of the complainant is false fabricated and misleading.
POINTS FOR DECESION
- Point No. 1: Is the complainant a consumer?
- Point No. 2: Has the bank / OP any right to revise the EMI amount?
- Point No. 3: Is the complainant entitled to get a relief as prayed for?
REASOND DECISIONS
For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.
We have meticulously gone through the complaint, the written version and the annexed documents. From the pleadings of the parties and the documents and the case law reported in I (2012) CPJ 323 (NC), we are inclined to hold that the complainant is a consumer.
In order to challenge the authority of the bank who revised the EMI, the complainant has referred State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. N. K. Sharma I (2012) CPJ 323 (NC). We have meticulously gone through the case laws mentioned above wherein the State Bank of India was directed to credit back the sum of Rs.53,640/- to the housing loan account of the respondent and recalculate the EMI in accordance with the commercial rate of interest.
We have also gone through IV (2012) CPJ 415 (NC) wherein it has been held that the concept of floating rate of the interest flows from the RBI guidelines regulating the rate of interest. It cannot be arbitrarily changed without informing or telling the reasons for increasing the rate of interest.
We have meticulously gone through the terms and agreement of housing loan dtd. 27.02.06 between Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Ranaghat Branch and Nirmal Kumar Roy. In the agreement we find at the third page second paragraph that there is a provision of equated monthly instalments and increase thereof in case of change of rate of interest. We have also gone through the terms of MOU with Govt. of West Bengal with State Bank of India for extending housing loan.
The demand notice dtd. 28.06.13 goes to show that a notice to repay the arrear instalment of Rs. 8,920/- was given by the bank to N.K. Roy, the complainant. From the ‘Statement of Account’ filed by the bank we find on 28.06.13 the deposit transferred from loan overdue to the tune of Rs. 8,920/-. When the agreement between the parties goes to show that the floating interest can be changed and naturally the equated monthly instalment is automatically changed, we are inclined to hold that the bank has committed no mistake in recovery of Rs. 8,920/- by demand notice dtd. 18.06.13.
We have thoroughly gone through the written argument filed by both parties on 06.01.14 and 10.02.14, but we cannot find why State Bank of India advised the BDO to continue the EMI of Rs.2,005/- instead of EMI on Rs.2,170/-. ‘Annexure – 3’ makes it clear that the EMI amount was revised to Rs. 2,170/- instead of Rs. 2,005/- and arrear of Rs.6742.41 is shown as overdue.
When the bank has authorized to change the floating interest as per guidelines and the bank has reserved its right to change the EMI as per the agreement dtd. 27.02.2006, we are inclined to hold that the action taken by the bank regarding increased EMI is backed by law and hence we hold that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/61/2013 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
