| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.232 of 02-03-2016 Decided on 13-07-2017 Munishinder Singh S/o Gurcharan Singh R/o Ward No.2, Birj Lal Street, Jaitu, District Faridkot. ........Complainant Versus 1.Canara Bank, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Chief Manager. 2.Canara Bank, Head Office, Circle Office Building, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.Rohit Sharma, Advocate. For opposite parties: Sh.Gaurav Vinocha, Advocate. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Munishinder Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Canara Bank and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he took the housing loan of Rs.2,50,000/- from opposite parties on interest @ 9% per annum compounded monthly. The loan was to be repaid by the complainant in 120 equal monthly installments of Rs.3170/- commencing w.e.f. March, 2007 to 28.02.2017 vide loan agreement No.1623619001154. He executed the loan agreement and other documents in this regard in favour of opposite parties as required by their officials at the time of sanctioning of the loan. Since the date of taking the loan, he has been making the payment of the loan installments with the bank regularly, without committing any default. His loan account is going to be settled as full and final on 28.2.2017. He is ready and willing to pay the remaining loan installments up to 28.2.2017 at the agreed rate of Rs.3170/- per month. It is alleged that to the utter dismay and surprise of the complainant, he received the letter dated 29.9.2015 from opposite parties vide which they have alleged that due to the system error, the account has been opened under fixed ROI and updated in the system on 16.6.2015 as per sanctioned and converted into floating ROI instead of fixed. As such, EMI has been revised w.e.f. 16.6.2015 of Rs.5467/-. As per complainant, the letter dated 29.9.2015 is totally wrong and illegal, null and void and having no binding effect upon his rights as he never agreed to pay interest on 'floating rate'. The loan was sanctioned at the fixed rate @ 9% per annum compounded monthly. It is also alleged that opposite parties cannot be allowed to proclaim any error in the system. The complainant was also not afforded any opportunity of being heard before revising EMI nor any prior notice was given to him by opposite parties. After receiving the letter, he repeatedly requested opposite parties to supply the copy of the loan agreement, but they failed to supply him its copy and instructed him that he can get it under RTI Act. He also applied for copy of the loan agreement under Right to Information Act, but still opposite parties or Public Information Officer have failed to supply him the copy of the loan agreement. It further shows the malafide conduct of opposite parties. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. He has pleaded that he is suffering from mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment, humiliation and financial loss. He has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and prayed for directions to opposite parties to refix the EMI @ Rs.3170/- per month w.e.f. 16.6.2015 to 28.2.2017 in addition to cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.5500/-. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing the joint written version. In the written version, opposite parties have raised the preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus-standi and cause-of-action to file this complaint. The interest on the loan in question was not at fixed interest basis i.e. 9% per annum. The loan was at floating rate of interest. It is clear from the housing loan agreement dated 11.10.2006 as well as acknowledgment of debts executed by the complainant on dated 26.12.2008, 10.12.2011 and 3.2.2014. He has not come to this Forum with clean hands. He has suppressed the true facts from this Forum with malafide intention/motive to save his liability i.e. to pay interest at floating rate of interest on housing loan amount as agreed and undertaken by him. He has admitted the execution of documents. He cannot go beyond the loan documents and take any advantage of inadvertent mistake of opposite parties. There is relationship of borrower and lender between the complainant and opposite parties and such relations does not come within the meaning and scope of complainant being 'consumer' as defined under 'Act'. The complaint is time barred. The allegations are totally wrong, false and vexatious. It is liable to be dismissed with exemplary & special costs of Rs.33,000/- in addition to Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant applied for housing loan for Rs.2,50,000/-, which was sanctioned and advanced to him. All other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce the evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 1.9.2016, (Ex.C1); photocopies of letters, (Ex.C2 and Ex.C3); photocopy of account statement, (Ex.C4); photocopy of status report, (Ex.C5) and closed the evidence. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Chander Gupta, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopy of loan application form, (Ex.OP1/2); photocopy of having loan agreement, (Ex.OP1/3); photocopies of acknowledgment of debt, (Ex.OP1/4 to Ex.OP1/6); photocopy of letter dated 29.9.2015, (Ex.OP1/7); photocopy of letter dated 29.12.2015, (Ex.OP1/8); photocopies of account statements, (Ex.OP1/9 and Ex.OP1/10) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the controversy is only regarding rate of interest. Opposite parties have produced on record copy of loan application moved by the complainant. Lastly, office of opposite parties dealt with the matter and rate of interest is categorically mentioned as 9% compounding per month. The repayment condition is also mentioned as 120 EMIs for Rs.3170/- each from the month March 2007. The loan was sanctioned as per these terms and conditions. The documents produced by opposite parties prove the case of the complainant. It is also submitted by learned counsel for complainant that although, the complainant has paid all the outstanding amount as demanded by opposite parties during the pendency of complaint, but the complaint cannot be dismissed only on this ground. The excess amount paid by the complainant can be ordered to be refunded with interest. The deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties stands proved. Therefore, the complainant is also entitled to compensation as prayed for and cost of litigation. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that the complainant himself has paid the entire outstanding amount during the pendency of complaint. Statement of account, (Ex.OP1/10) proves this fact. As the complainant has already paid the due amount without any protest, therefore, the complaint has become infructuous and it is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite parties that the process for sanctioning of loan commenced by the loan application, (Ex.OP1/2) moved by the complainant. The rate of interest opted by the complainant was floating and not fixed. The last sanctioned order also reveals that the rate of interest was 9% at the time of sanctioning of the loan and it was also made clear by way of footnote that the rate of interest is subject to change as decided by the bank from time to time. The complainant has executed the acknowledgments of debt and security, (Ex.OP1/4 to Ex.OP1/6) after availing the loan. Vide acknowledgment of debt and security, (Ex.OP1/4), the complainant acknowledged his liability to pay the outstanding amount with interest @ 11% per annum. This document executed on 26.12.2008. Similarly, vide acknowledgment of debt and security, (Ex.OP1/5), he acknowledged his liability to pay the outstanding amount with interest @ 11% per annum from 1.12.2011 onwards. Again, vide acknowledgment of debt and security dated 3.2.2014, (Ex.OP1/6), he acknowledged his liability to pay the outstanding amount with interest @ 11% per annum. Therefore, there is admission of the complainant regarding his liability to pay the interest at floating rate. As such, no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of opposite parties. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. Admitted facts are that the complainant availed the loan of Rs.2,50,000/-, which was to be repaid in monthly installments. Only controversy is whether opposite parties were to charge the interest at fixed rate of 9% per annum or at floating rate. The complainant applied for the loan vide loan application, (Ex.OP1/2). As per this document, rate of interest opted by him was floating and not fixed. On this application, the loan was sanctioned. At that time, the rate of interest was mentioned as 9% compounding, but the rate of interest was conditioned. The footnote makes it clear that the rate of interest was subject to change as decided by the bank from time to time. Therefore, this document clinches the controversy. It proves that the complainant opted the floating rate of interest and not fixed. The loan was sanctioned with floating rate of interest. The matter did not end at this point only. Subsequently, the complainant has also executed the acknowledgments of debt and security, (Ex.OP1/4 to Ex.OP1/6) on different dates. Vide Ex.OP1/4, he has acknowledged his liability to pay the interest @ 11% per annum. Similarly, on 10.12.2011, vide acknowledgment of debt and security, (Ex.OP1/5), he acknowledged his liability to pay the interest @ 11% per annum. Lastly, on 3.2.2014, he again acknowledged his liability to pay the interest @ 11% per annum. Therefore, there is admission of the complainant that the interest opted was floating and not fixed. He has admittedly paid the entire outstanding amount at the floating rate of interest without any protest and some amount has been paid during the pendency of complaint. Nothing is outstanding against him. From all angles, it is proved and admitted that opposite parties were to claim the interest at the floating rate. Therefore, no deficiency in service can be attributed to them. For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 13-07-2017 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
