Haryana

Ambala

CC/272/2016

Smt. Vinod Bala Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief General Manager. - Opp.Party(s)

L.R. Saini.

12 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 272 of 2016.

                                                          Date of Institution         : 12.07.2016.

                                                          Date of decision   : 12.02.2018.

 

          Mrs. Vinod Bala Gupta wife of Shri Ashok Gupta, resident of House      No.510, Sector 8, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

 

1. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Officer, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.
2. Branch Manager State Bank of India Mandi Branch, Radha Krishan Bazar, Ambala City.  

….…. Opposite parties.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER         

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

 

Present:       Sh.Leela Ram Saini, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. R.L.Mundan, counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant is an employee of OPs and had applied for house loan under staff house loan scheme and as per scheme the rate of interest was 6 % per annum. Loan of Rs.3 lac was sanctioned vide account No.10027066728 for construction of house in the year 2000 and loan of Rs.1.5 was further sanctioned. The installment was Rs.1700/- & Rs.850/- per month respectively for the said loans which were being deducted regularly from the salary of the complainant. As per terms and conditions of the loan for bank employees the same was sanctioned at commercial rates and it was told to complainant by OP No.2 that the same would be converted into staff house loan and simple interest rate would be reduced @ 6 % per annum as per scheme. It was further told to her that interest @ 6 % would be charged from beginning and extra interest already deducted would be adjusted in the loan account. Due to fault of OP No.2 rate of interest was charged at commercial rates i.e. compound interest @ 11 % per annum till 06.02.2008 and after 06.02.2008 the rate of interest was charged @ 6 % per annum and the excess amount of interest charged upto 06.02.2008 was liable to be refunded to the complainant or adjusted in her account but the OPs did not do the needful and even on the asking of OP No.2 she had also deposited Rs.72000/- on 06.06.2014. Due to act and conduct of OPs the complainant has suffered mental harassment besides financial loss because as per rules amount of interest was received within 2 or 3 months after sanctioning of loan but the sanction was obtained by the OPs after 8 years from the sanctioning of loan. The complainant requested the OPs either to refund or adjust the interest charged in excess but to no effect, therefore, she got served legal notice upon them followed by reminder dated 14.03.2016.  The loan amount is still pending and the installment is also being got deducted from the account of the complainant without redressing the grievance of the complainant which shows that the OPs are deficient in providing service to her.  In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C14.

2.                 Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed joint reply wherein many preliminary objections such as cause of action, estoppal, suppression of material facts and jurisdiction etc. have been taken.  It has been submitted that the loan of Rs.3 lac was sanctioned as housing loan under the scheme applicable to the employee of the bank on 21.02.2000 and the rate of interest was 5 % upto the amount of Rs.1,10,000/-  and on the amount over and above Rs.1,10,000/- rate of interest to be charged @ 11 % per annum in terms of circular bearing memo No.CDO/IR/3/97 LHO circular No.PER No.33 of 1997-98. The existing rate of interest was to be paid in terms of policy of government of India and practice of the bank and the terms of sanction were conveyed to the complainant after accepting the said terms and conditions she had executed agreement for loan. The loan was enhanced from Rs.3 lac to Rs.4.5 lac and she had agreed to pay interest @ 11 % per annum. There was no rate of interest @ 6 % per annum from the beginning of advancement of loan as per scheme. The rate of interest in the loan account has been charged correctly in terms of the circulars issued by the bank from time to time in terms of security documents executed by her in favour of the bank.  The legal notice has duly been replied  and the complainant has never been harassed and she has not suffered any financial loss  due to the act and conduct of the OPs. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  In evidence, the OPs have tendered affidavit Annexure RX and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R59.  

3.                We have heard counsel for the parties and careful gone through the case filed.

4.                The grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have charged interest @ 11 % per annum on the loan taken by her under staff house loan scheme despite the fact that it was to be charged @ 6 % per annum. The complainant has requested several times to the OPs and even got served legal notice upon them but the OPs did not redress her grievance rather kept on charging the interest @ 11 % per annum from the date of loan and due to this she has suffered huge financial loss besides mental agony and harassment.

5.                Per contra, the Ops have come with the plea that loan of Rs.3 lac was sanctioned as housing loan under staff house loan scheme applicable to the employee of the bank on 21.02.2000 and the rate of interest was 5 % upto the amount of Rs.1,10,000/-  and on the amount over and above Rs.1,10,000/- rate of interest to be charged @ 11 % per annum in terms of circular bearing memo No.CDO/IR/3/97 LHO circular No.PER No.33 of 1997-98. The existing rate of interest was to be paid in terms of policy of government of India and practice of the bank and the terms of sanction were conveyed to the complainant after accepting the said terms and conditions she had executed agreement for loan Annexure R18. The loan was enhanced from Rs.3 lac to Rs.4.5 lac and she had agreed to pay interest @ 11 % per annum. There was no rate of interest @ 6 % per annum from the beginning of advancement of loan as per scheme. There is no deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

6.                          Undisputedly, the complainant has obtained loan from the OPs under Staff House Loan Scheme and deduction/depositing of installments qua the loan amount is also not disputed. Perusal of Annexure R29 i.e. Copy of memorandum  dated 03.07.1997 reveals the rate of interest qua Clerical Staff & Subordinate Staff, which follows as under:

                              Simple rate of interest:

1. Loans upto Rs.1.10 lacs @ 5 % p.a.                                    
2. Loans above Rs.1.10 lacs @ 11 % p.a.

 

The al         legged loan was obtained in the year 2000 after executing an agreement dated 24.02.2000. Learned counsel for the Ops has argued that the complainant wants to take the benefit of circular No.CDO: IR:6 dated 27.04.2001 & No.CDO/ P&HRD-1R/64/2007-08 wherein it has been mentioned the revised Rate of interest as 6 % p.a. (simple) upto loan of Rs.3 lacs  to Rs.7.50 lacs (now revised from Rs. 8 lacs to Rs.20 lacs).  This plea of the complainant is not tenable. Relevant para No.4 of this circular (Annexure R34) is reproduced as under:

                   4.The other operational guidelines approved are as under :                  

(i) The rationalization in interest rates will be effected immediately to all new loans under IHLS sanctioned on or after the date of this circular and to the existing loans under Individual housing loan scheme for employees with effect from 01.02.2008 .        

 

 It is established on the case file that the complainant had obtained the loan prior to issuance of the circular Annexure R34 on the basis of which the complainant has sought the relief by way of filing this complaint qua reduction of rate of interest from 11 % to 6 %. The Ops have rightly charged the interest in terms of policy of government of India and practice of the bank after conveying the terms of sanctioning of loan to the complainant. The complainant after accepting the said terms and conditions also executed agreement for loan Annexure R18 but it appears that under the garb of this complaint she wants to back-out from the terms and conditions executed between the parties at the time of sanctioning of loan and this practice is not acceptable and no one is allowed to take the benefit of the benevolent provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

7.                          Keeping in view the above discussion it is clear that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs by leading cogent and reliable evidence, therefore, present complaint deserves dismissal. Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on: 12.02.2018                                                                                                                                             

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)           (ANAMIKA GUPTA)       (D.N.ARORA)

                 Member                                   Member                           President                                                                                              District Consumer Disputes                                                                                 Redressal Forum, Ambala.