DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
Palakkad, Kerala
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2011
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi A.K, Member
Date of filing:19/05/2011
CC.No. 72 / 2011
Karunakaran,
S/o Kunjan,
'Kousthubham', - Complainant
Kannadi (P.O),
Palakkad Taluk,
Palakkad District.
(By Adv.John John)
Vs
Canara Bank,
Represented by its Manager,
Pudussery Branch, - Opposite party
Pudussery (P.O),
Palakkad District.
(By Adv. A. Guorisankar &
Adv. G. Ananthakrishnan)
O R D E R
BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER
The brief facts of the complaint:
The complainant is an employee of I.T.I Ltd, Kanjikkode. The complainant availed a housing loan bearing No. HL. 524 for Rs. 2,80,000/- from the opposite party on 31/10/2003. As per the terms of the loan agreement, the loan was to be repaid in 60 EMI of Rs. 4,020/- each, subject to modification with change of rate of interest as floating interest was opted. The EMI payable was to be recovered from the salary of the complainant for a period of 5 years from the date of the first instalment due. The 60th instalment ie, the last instalment payable by the complainant was deducted from the salary of the complainant was on 13/11/2008.
The complainant had paid all the 60 instalments regularly in due time. On
completion of the loan recovery, the complainant approached the opposite party to release the title documents. But the Bank Manager informed the complainant that an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- is outstanding for recovery. On further enquiry it was found that a calculation error occurred on the part of the opposite party and the complainant was informed that the correct EMI which was to be paid by the complainant was Rs. 5,575/-.
On getting knowledge of the above said outstanding amount, the complainant contacted and sent letter to Manager, Canara Bank, Customer Grievance Cell on 30/03/2009 and 15/05/2009. But the complainant did not get any reply for redressing the grievance. Hence the complainant issued a letter to
the Assistant General Manager, Customer Service Section, Canara Bank, Calicut informing that the complainant is ready to co-operate with opposite party and resolve the subject issue amicably. But no steps were taken by the opposite party to resolve the issue. So the complainant preferred a complainant before the Banking Ombudsman. But the grievance of the complainant remained unsolved. Again the complainant informed the opposite party that he is ready to remit the defference EMI, amounting to Rs. 93,300/-. Had the opposite party calculated the EMI properly and correctly the complainant would have paid the correct amount without any fail. So the complainant is not liable to pay any penal interest towards the outstanding loan amount.
On 11/09/2010 the complainant received a letter from opposite party to remit an amount of Rs. 1,41,072/- together with interest at the rate of 10.5% from 01/02/2010 and other charges within 60 days from the receipt of the notice. After
paying the said amount of Rs.1,45,000/- on 14/12/2010 the opposite party issued a Possession Notice stating that the complainant and the public in general are cautioned not deal with the property and any dealing with the property will be subject to the charge of the Canara Bank for an amount of Rs. 1,45,831/- and interest there on.
The above said acts of the opposite party caused much hardship and mental agony to the complainant. So the complainant seeking an order directing the
opposite party to release the documents submitted by the complainant and to pay an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation along with the cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying all the averments put forward by the complainant. The opposite party had sanctioned Housing Loan No. 524 to the complainant on 31/10/2003 to take over of a housing loan liability from another bank. The complainant had executed a Housing Loan agreement dated 31/10/2003. While receiving Rs. 2,80,000/- agreeing to repay the same in 60 EMI of Rs. 5,575/- subject to modification with change of rate of interest on floating interest was opted. As there was some clerical mistakes in entering the
EMI in the loan register, Rs. 4,020/- only was deducted from the salary of the employee and remitted to the loan account by M/S I.T.I Ltd, Kanjikkode instead of Rs. 5,575/-.
On completion of 60 EMI of Rs. 4,020/-, the complainant requested for releasing the documents. Since the entire liabilities of the complainant was not cleared opposite party could not return the documents and requested the complainant to remit the balance amount. Subsequently the complainant filed complaints with the higher authorities of the bank and the Banking Ombudsman. The higher authorities advised the complainant to continue the repayment and to clear the loan arrears at the earliest. Since the complainant did not turn up to pay the balance the Bank had to initiate recovery proceedings. In the mean while the complainant had remitted the balance amount and closed the Housing Loan Account and received back all the documents on 22/12/2010.
There was no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Both parties filed their respective affidavits. Ext. A1 to Ext. A5 marked on the side of the complainant and Ext. B1 to Ext. B9 marked on the side of the
opposite party.
Matter heard.
Issues to be considered are;
Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party? If so,
2. What is the relief and cost ?
Issues I & II
The complainant filed this complaint for directing the opposite party to release the documents of the complainant pledged with the opposite party in connection with Housing Loan Account No. HL. 524 for Rs. 2,80,000/- and to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- with 12% interest as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant.
The complainant availed a housing loan bearing No. HL. 524 for Rs. 2,80,000/- from the opposite party on 31/10/2003. The loan amount was to be paid in 60 EMI of Rs. 4,020/- each, subject to modification with change of rate of interest was opted. Accordingly the EMI payable was to be recovered from the salary of the
complainant for a period of 5 years from the date of the first instalment due. The 60th instalment ie, the last instalment payable by the complainant was deducted from the salary of the complainant on 13/11/2008. On completion of the recovery of the loan amount the complainant approached the opposite party to release the title documents. Then the opposite party informed the complainant that an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- is outstanding for recovery. And it was due to the calculation error occurred by on the part of opposite party while calculating the EMI instalment due. According to the correct calculation the EMI which was to be paid by the complainant was Rs. 5,575/-. So that the complainant was informed by the opposite party to remit an amount of Rs. 1,41,072/- together with interest at the rate of 10.5% from 01/02/2010. Accordingly the complainant remitted the Rs.1,45,000/-, the whole loan amount and closed the loan. But the complainant is not supposed to pay the above said amount. If any financial loss occured to the
opposite party is not because of the complainant. Opposite party itself admits that there is an error occured in entering the EMI amount in the loan register.
So that Rs. 4,020/- only was deducted from the salary of the employee and remitted to the loan account by M/s. I T I Ltd, Kanjikkode instead of Rs. 5,575/-. Complainant is not expected to have the knowledge of variation in the interest rate in time to time. If the opposite party had verified the due amount regulary the complainant will not suffer such hardships. Any how the complainant is bound to repay the exact laon amount. But he is not bound to pay the penal interest which is happened of the deficiency on the part of opposite party. So the complainant is liable to pay the defference EMI, amounting to Rs. 93,300/- (Rs. 5,575-Rs. 4,020 = Rs. 1,555/-) (Rs. 1,555 x 60= Rs. 93,300/-).
1st prayer of the complainat is to release the documents to the complainant. In the version itself opposite party stated that the complainant had remitted the balance amount and closed the Housing Loan account and received back all the documents on 22/12/2010. At the time of argument the counsel for the complainant also submitted that they have received the documents.
From the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in making error in the loan register.
In the result complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay the balance amount deducting Rs. 93,300/- from Rs.1,45,000/- which is paid by the complainant to close the loan account that comes to Rs. 51,700/- with an interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing the complaint along with an amount of Rs.1,000/- as the cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of receipt of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of September,2011
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
1. Ext. A1- Origal of Letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party dated,
30/03/2009.
2. Ext. A2- Original of Letter sent by the complainant to the Banking Ombudsman
dated, 16/02/2010.
3. Ext. A3- Copy of Letter issued by the Banking Ombudsman to the complainant dated, 28/04/2010.
4. Ext. A4- Copy of Letter sent by the complainant to The Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank Circle Office, Kozhikode, dated 10/12/2010.
5. Ext. A5- Copy of Possession Notice issued by the Authorised Officer, Canara Bank,
Pudussery Branch, Palakkad, dated 14/12/2010.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
1.Ext. B1- Oroginal of Housing Loan Agreement issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
2. Ext. B2- Original of Guarantee Covering Letter issued by the opposite party.
3. Ext. B3-Original of Guarantee Agreement issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
4. Ext. B4- Copy of Undertaking Letter from the complainant to the opposite party
dated, 31/10/2003.
5. Ext. B5- Copy of Letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated, 20/05/2010.
6. Ext. B6- Original of Letter issued by the Office of the Banking Ombudsman to the complainant dated, 07/05/2010.
7. Ext. B7- Original of Letter sent by the opposite party to the complainant dated, 17/02/2010.
8. Ext. B8- Original of Letter sent by the complainant to the Banking Ombudsman dated, 30/04/2010
9. Ext. B9-Copy of Statement of Account for General Advances issued by the opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party
Nil.
Cost allowed
Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand Only) as cost of the proceedings.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
Palakkad, Kerala
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2011
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi A.K, Member
Date of filing:19/05/2011
CC.No. 72 / 2011
Karunakaran,
S/o Kunjan,
'Kousthubham', - Complainant
Kannadi (P.O),
Palakkad Taluk,
Palakkad District.
(By Adv.John John)
Vs
Canara Bank,
Represented by its Manager,
Pudussery Branch, - Opposite party
Pudussery (P.O),
Palakkad District.
(By Adv. A. Guorisankar &
Adv. G. Ananthakrishnan)
O R D E R
BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER
The brief facts of the complaint:
The complainant is an employee of I.T.I Ltd, Kanjikkode. The complainant availed a housing loan bearing No. HL. 524 for Rs. 2,80,000/- from the opposite party on 31/10/2003. As per the terms of the loan agreement, the loan was to be repaid in 60 EMI of Rs. 4,020/- each, subject to modification with change of rate of interest as floating interest was opted. The EMI payable was to be recovered from the salary of the complainant for a period of 5 years from the date of the first instalment due. The 60th instalment ie, the last instalment payable by the complainant was deducted from the salary of the complainant was on 13/11/2008.
The complainant had paid all the 60 instalments regularly in due time. On
completion of the loan recovery, the complainant approached the opposite party to release the title documents. But the Bank Manager informed the complainant that an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- is outstanding for recovery. On further enquiry it was found that a calculation error occurred on the part of the opposite party and the complainant was informed that the correct EMI which was to be paid by the complainant was Rs. 5,575/-.
On getting knowledge of the above said outstanding amount, the complainant contacted and sent letter to Manager, Canara Bank, Customer Grievance Cell on 30/03/2009 and 15/05/2009. But the complainant did not get any reply for redressing the grievance. Hence the complainant issued a letter to
the Assistant General Manager, Customer Service Section, Canara Bank, Calicut informing that the complainant is ready to co-operate with opposite party and resolve the subject issue amicably. But no steps were taken by the opposite party to resolve the issue. So the complainant preferred a complainant before the Banking Ombudsman. But the grievance of the complainant remained unsolved. Again the complainant informed the opposite party that he is ready to remit the defference EMI, amounting to Rs. 93,300/-. Had the opposite party calculated the EMI properly and correctly the complainant would have paid the correct amount without any fail. So the complainant is not liable to pay any penal interest towards the outstanding loan amount.
On 11/09/2010 the complainant received a letter from opposite party to remit an amount of Rs. 1,41,072/- together with interest at the rate of 10.5% from 01/02/2010 and other charges within 60 days from the receipt of the notice. After
paying the said amount of Rs.1,45,000/- on 14/12/2010 the opposite party issued a Possession Notice stating that the complainant and the public in general are cautioned not deal with the property and any dealing with the property will be subject to the charge of the Canara Bank for an amount of Rs. 1,45,831/- and interest there on.
The above said acts of the opposite party caused much hardship and mental agony to the complainant. So the complainant seeking an order directing the
opposite party to release the documents submitted by the complainant and to pay an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation along with the cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying all the averments put forward by the complainant. The opposite party had sanctioned Housing Loan No. 524 to the complainant on 31/10/2003 to take over of a housing loan liability from another bank. The complainant had executed a Housing Loan agreement dated 31/10/2003. While receiving Rs. 2,80,000/- agreeing to repay the same in 60 EMI of Rs. 5,575/- subject to modification with change of rate of interest on floating interest was opted. As there was some clerical mistakes in entering the
EMI in the loan register, Rs. 4,020/- only was deducted from the salary of the employee and remitted to the loan account by M/S I.T.I Ltd, Kanjikkode instead of Rs. 5,575/-.
On completion of 60 EMI of Rs. 4,020/-, the complainant requested for releasing the documents. Since the entire liabilities of the complainant was not cleared opposite party could not return the documents and requested the complainant to remit the balance amount. Subsequently the complainant filed complaints with the higher authorities of the bank and the Banking Ombudsman. The higher authorities advised the complainant to continue the repayment and to clear the loan arrears at the earliest. Since the complainant did not turn up to pay the balance the Bank had to initiate recovery proceedings. In the mean while the complainant had remitted the balance amount and closed the Housing Loan Account and received back all the documents on 22/12/2010.
There was no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Both parties filed their respective affidavits. Ext. A1 to Ext. A5 marked on the side of the complainant and Ext. B1 to Ext. B9 marked on the side of the
opposite party.
Matter heard.
Issues to be considered are;
Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party? If so,
2. What is the relief and cost ?
Issues I & II
The complainant filed this complaint for directing the opposite party to release the documents of the complainant pledged with the opposite party in connection with Housing Loan Account No. HL. 524 for Rs. 2,80,000/- and to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- with 12% interest as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant.
The complainant availed a housing loan bearing No. HL. 524 for Rs. 2,80,000/- from the opposite party on 31/10/2003. The loan amount was to be paid in 60 EMI of Rs. 4,020/- each, subject to modification with change of rate of interest was opted. Accordingly the EMI payable was to be recovered from the salary of the
complainant for a period of 5 years from the date of the first instalment due. The 60th instalment ie, the last instalment payable by the complainant was deducted from the salary of the complainant on 13/11/2008. On completion of the recovery of the loan amount the complainant approached the opposite party to release the title documents. Then the opposite party informed the complainant that an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- is outstanding for recovery. And it was due to the calculation error occurred by on the part of opposite party while calculating the EMI instalment due. According to the correct calculation the EMI which was to be paid by the complainant was Rs. 5,575/-. So that the complainant was informed by the opposite party to remit an amount of Rs. 1,41,072/- together with interest at the rate of 10.5% from 01/02/2010. Accordingly the complainant remitted the Rs.1,45,000/-, the whole loan amount and closed the loan. But the complainant is not supposed to pay the above said amount. If any financial loss occured to the
opposite party is not because of the complainant. Opposite party itself admits that there is an error occured in entering the EMI amount in the loan register.
So that Rs. 4,020/- only was deducted from the salary of the employee and remitted to the loan account by M/s. I T I Ltd, Kanjikkode instead of Rs. 5,575/-. Complainant is not expected to have the knowledge of variation in the interest rate in time to time. If the opposite party had verified the due amount regulary the complainant will not suffer such hardships. Any how the complainant is bound to repay the exact laon amount. But he is not bound to pay the penal interest which is happened of the deficiency on the part of opposite party. So the complainant is liable to pay the defference EMI, amounting to Rs. 93,300/- (Rs. 5,575-Rs. 4,020 = Rs. 1,555/-) (Rs. 1,555 x 60= Rs. 93,300/-).
1st prayer of the complainat is to release the documents to the complainant. In the version itself opposite party stated that the complainant had remitted the balance amount and closed the Housing Loan account and received back all the documents on 22/12/2010. At the time of argument the counsel for the complainant also submitted that they have received the documents.
From the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in making error in the loan register.
In the result complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay the balance amount deducting Rs. 93,300/- from Rs.1,45,000/- which is paid by the complainant to close the loan account that comes to Rs. 51,700/- with an interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing the complaint along with an amount of Rs.1,000/- as the cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of receipt of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of September,2011
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
1. Ext. A1- Origal of Letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party dated,
30/03/2009.
2. Ext. A2- Original of Letter sent by the complainant to the Banking Ombudsman
dated, 16/02/2010.
3. Ext. A3- Copy of Letter issued by the Banking Ombudsman to the complainant dated, 28/04/2010.
4. Ext. A4- Copy of Letter sent by the complainant to The Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank Circle Office, Kozhikode, dated 10/12/2010.
5. Ext. A5- Copy of Possession Notice issued by the Authorised Officer, Canara Bank,
Pudussery Branch, Palakkad, dated 14/12/2010.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
1.Ext. B1- Oroginal of Housing Loan Agreement issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
2. Ext. B2- Original of Guarantee Covering Letter issued by the opposite party.
3. Ext. B3-Original of Guarantee Agreement issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
4. Ext. B4- Copy of Undertaking Letter from the complainant to the opposite party
dated, 31/10/2003.
5. Ext. B5- Copy of Letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated, 20/05/2010.
6. Ext. B6- Original of Letter issued by the Office of the Banking Ombudsman to the complainant dated, 07/05/2010.
7. Ext. B7- Original of Letter sent by the opposite party to the complainant dated, 17/02/2010.
8. Ext. B8- Original of Letter sent by the complainant to the Banking Ombudsman dated, 30/04/2010
9. Ext. B9-Copy of Statement of Account for General Advances issued by the opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party
Nil.
Cost allowed
Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand Only) as cost of the proceedings.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
Palakkad, Kerala
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2011
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi A.K, Member
Date of filing:19/05/2011
CC.No. 72 / 2011
Karunakaran,
S/o Kunjan,
'Kousthubham', - Complainant
Kannadi (P.O),
Palakkad Taluk,
Palakkad District.
(By Adv.John John)
Vs
Canara Bank,
Represented by its Manager,
Pudussery Branch, - Opposite party
Pudussery (P.O),
Palakkad District.
(By Adv. A. Guorisankar &
Adv. G. Ananthakrishnan)
O R D E R
BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER
The brief facts of the complaint:
The complainant is an employee of I.T.I Ltd, Kanjikkode. The complainant availed a housing loan bearing No. HL. 524 for Rs. 2,80,000/- from the opposite party on 31/10/2003. As per the terms of the loan agreement, the loan was to be repaid in 60 EMI of Rs. 4,020/- each, subject to modification with change of rate of interest as floating interest was opted. The EMI payable was to be recovered from the salary of the complainant for a period of 5 years from the date of the first instalment due. The 60th instalment ie, the last instalment payable by the complainant was deducted from the salary of the complainant was on 13/11/2008.
The complainant had paid all the 60 instalments regularly in due time. On
completion of the loan recovery, the complainant approached the opposite party to release the title documents. But the Bank Manager informed the complainant that an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- is outstanding for recovery. On further enquiry it was found that a calculation error occurred on the part of the opposite party and the complainant was informed that the correct EMI which was to be paid by the complainant was Rs. 5,575/-.
On getting knowledge of the above said outstanding amount, the complainant contacted and sent letter to Manager, Canara Bank, Customer Grievance Cell on 30/03/2009 and 15/05/2009. But the complainant did not get any reply for redressing the grievance. Hence the complainant issued a letter to
the Assistant General Manager, Customer Service Section, Canara Bank, Calicut informing that the complainant is ready to co-operate with opposite party and resolve the subject issue amicably. But no steps were taken by the opposite party to resolve the issue. So the complainant preferred a complainant before the Banking Ombudsman. But the grievance of the complainant remained unsolved. Again the complainant informed the opposite party that he is ready to remit the defference EMI, amounting to Rs. 93,300/-. Had the opposite party calculated the EMI properly and correctly the complainant would have paid the correct amount without any fail. So the complainant is not liable to pay any penal interest towards the outstanding loan amount.
On 11/09/2010 the complainant received a letter from opposite party to remit an amount of Rs. 1,41,072/- together with interest at the rate of 10.5% from 01/02/2010 and other charges within 60 days from the receipt of the notice. After
paying the said amount of Rs.1,45,000/- on 14/12/2010 the opposite party issued a Possession Notice stating that the complainant and the public in general are cautioned not deal with the property and any dealing with the property will be subject to the charge of the Canara Bank for an amount of Rs. 1,45,831/- and interest there on.
The above said acts of the opposite party caused much hardship and mental agony to the complainant. So the complainant seeking an order directing the
opposite party to release the documents submitted by the complainant and to pay an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation along with the cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying all the averments put forward by the complainant. The opposite party had sanctioned Housing Loan No. 524 to the complainant on 31/10/2003 to take over of a housing loan liability from another bank. The complainant had executed a Housing Loan agreement dated 31/10/2003. While receiving Rs. 2,80,000/- agreeing to repay the same in 60 EMI of Rs. 5,575/- subject to modification with change of rate of interest on floating interest was opted. As there was some clerical mistakes in entering the
EMI in the loan register, Rs. 4,020/- only was deducted from the salary of the employee and remitted to the loan account by M/S I.T.I Ltd, Kanjikkode instead of Rs. 5,575/-.
On completion of 60 EMI of Rs. 4,020/-, the complainant requested for releasing the documents. Since the entire liabilities of the complainant was not cleared opposite party could not return the documents and requested the complainant to remit the balance amount. Subsequently the complainant filed complaints with the higher authorities of the bank and the Banking Ombudsman. The higher authorities advised the complainant to continue the repayment and to clear the loan arrears at the earliest. Since the complainant did not turn up to pay the balance the Bank had to initiate recovery proceedings. In the mean while the complainant had remitted the balance amount and closed the Housing Loan Account and received back all the documents on 22/12/2010.
There was no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Both parties filed their respective affidavits. Ext. A1 to Ext. A5 marked on the side of the complainant and Ext. B1 to Ext. B9 marked on the side of the
opposite party.
Matter heard.
Issues to be considered are;
Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party? If so,
2. What is the relief and cost ?
Issues I & II
The complainant filed this complaint for directing the opposite party to release the documents of the complainant pledged with the opposite party in connection with Housing Loan Account No. HL. 524 for Rs. 2,80,000/- and to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- with 12% interest as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant.
The complainant availed a housing loan bearing No. HL. 524 for Rs. 2,80,000/- from the opposite party on 31/10/2003. The loan amount was to be paid in 60 EMI of Rs. 4,020/- each, subject to modification with change of rate of interest was opted. Accordingly the EMI payable was to be recovered from the salary of the
complainant for a period of 5 years from the date of the first instalment due. The 60th instalment ie, the last instalment payable by the complainant was deducted from the salary of the complainant on 13/11/2008. On completion of the recovery of the loan amount the complainant approached the opposite party to release the title documents. Then the opposite party informed the complainant that an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- is outstanding for recovery. And it was due to the calculation error occurred by on the part of opposite party while calculating the EMI instalment due. According to the correct calculation the EMI which was to be paid by the complainant was Rs. 5,575/-. So that the complainant was informed by the opposite party to remit an amount of Rs. 1,41,072/- together with interest at the rate of 10.5% from 01/02/2010. Accordingly the complainant remitted the Rs.1,45,000/-, the whole loan amount and closed the loan. But the complainant is not supposed to pay the above said amount. If any financial loss occured to the
opposite party is not because of the complainant. Opposite party itself admits that there is an error occured in entering the EMI amount in the loan register.
So that Rs. 4,020/- only was deducted from the salary of the employee and remitted to the loan account by M/s. I T I Ltd, Kanjikkode instead of Rs. 5,575/-. Complainant is not expected to have the knowledge of variation in the interest rate in time to time. If the opposite party had verified the due amount regulary the complainant will not suffer such hardships. Any how the complainant is bound to repay the exact laon amount. But he is not bound to pay the penal interest which is happened of the deficiency on the part of opposite party. So the complainant is liable to pay the defference EMI, amounting to Rs. 93,300/- (Rs. 5,575-Rs. 4,020 = Rs. 1,555/-) (Rs. 1,555 x 60= Rs. 93,300/-).
1st prayer of the complainat is to release the documents to the complainant. In the version itself opposite party stated that the complainant had remitted the balance amount and closed the Housing Loan account and received back all the documents on 22/12/2010. At the time of argument the counsel for the complainant also submitted that they have received the documents.
From the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in making error in the loan register.
In the result complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay the balance amount deducting Rs. 93,300/- from Rs.1,45,000/- which is paid by the complainant to close the loan account that comes to Rs. 51,700/- with an interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing the complaint along with an amount of Rs.1,000/- as the cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of receipt of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of September,2011
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
1. Ext. A1- Origal of Letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party dated,
30/03/2009.
2. Ext. A2- Original of Letter sent by the complainant to the Banking Ombudsman
dated, 16/02/2010.
3. Ext. A3- Copy of Letter issued by the Banking Ombudsman to the complainant dated, 28/04/2010.
4. Ext. A4- Copy of Letter sent by the complainant to The Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank Circle Office, Kozhikode, dated 10/12/2010.
5. Ext. A5- Copy of Possession Notice issued by the Authorised Officer, Canara Bank,
Pudussery Branch, Palakkad, dated 14/12/2010.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
1.Ext. B1- Oroginal of Housing Loan Agreement issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
2. Ext. B2- Original of Guarantee Covering Letter issued by the opposite party.
3. Ext. B3-Original of Guarantee Agreement issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
4. Ext. B4- Copy of Undertaking Letter from the complainant to the opposite party
dated, 31/10/2003.
5. Ext. B5- Copy of Letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated, 20/05/2010.
6. Ext. B6- Original of Letter issued by the Office of the Banking Ombudsman to the complainant dated, 07/05/2010.
7. Ext. B7- Original of Letter sent by the opposite party to the complainant dated, 17/02/2010.
8. Ext. B8- Original of Letter sent by the complainant to the Banking Ombudsman dated, 30/04/2010
9. Ext. B9-Copy of Statement of Account for General Advances issued by the opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party
Nil.
Cost allowed
Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One Thousand Only) as cost of the proceedings.
