SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Allegation of deficiency in service on part of the OP-Bank on illegal charges in respect of complainant’s loan account are the allegations arrayed against the Opp.Parties.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that complainant purchased a ‘Tata-407’ Mini truck by taking a loan to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five lakhs) from OP-Bank. The loan account No. is 30976658740. As per the complainant he was paying the dues regularly to clear up the dues. Though complainant was paying dues regularly since the year 2009 and was not satisfied with the pending amount of loan dues accordingly obtained the loan statement account and after scrutinizing of the same found that OP-Bank has debited unnecessary amount like inspection charges, debit adjustment and unrealized interest recovery etc. in his loan account and the rate of interest varied from time to time violating the provisions of Banking laws and rules for which complainant requested the OP-Bank to revise his loan account. Complainant being harassed on non-rectification of his loan account issued an Advocates notice dtd.30.09.14 by regd. Post with AD but OP-Bank did not reply the legal notice for which complainant sustained financial loss, mental agony and file this complaint before the Forum to be compensated to the tune of Rs.1,90,970/-. The aforesaid reasons caused due to harassing attitude of the OP-Bank.
3. Being noticed OP-Bank appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed written statement into the dispute formally challenging the maintainability and denying the allegations of the complainant. It is stated in the written statement that after due consideration of loan application of the complainant OP-Bank sanctioned Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five lakhs) forpurchase of Tata Make 407 vehicle. Complainant, after executing an agreement on dtd.01.12.2009 and accepting the terms and conditions availed the said loan. It was agreed by the complainant that he will pay Rs.11,325/- per month commencing from January,2010 toNovember,2014 to clear the loan dues, the complainant also agreed to pay @ 12.25 per cent interest per annum as per Bank and RBI guidelines. It was also agreed by the complainant that OP-Bank on their discretion can enhance the interest rate on entire outstanding or in a portion thereof, for any irregularity including non-compliance of the terms and conditions. The terms and conditions of the OP-Bank reveals that entries in the statement of account shall be sufficient Notice in-charge of interests. The complainant-borrower has to pay all the charges, expenses incurred for default of loan outstanding and for recovery of the same. It is averred in the written statement that the interest charges on the loan account but not realized due to default of the borrower, was reversed in the account as per RBI guidelines and when the payment made by the borrower the unrealised interest reverse realized which is just a accounting procedure. The outstanding in the loan account of the complainant-borrower was Rs.54,806/- as on dtd.29.01.15 and due to irregular payments the loan account was turned to non-performing assets. It is further averred that complainant was availing the loan for commercial purposes, hence the complainant is excluded from the definition of‘consumer’as per C.P.Act, 1986. On the above circumstances, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties, examined the documents i.e. statement of accounts, legal notice, attested Xerox copy of letter of arrangement-cum-terms and conditions and attested Xerox copy of agreement of loan-cum-hypothecation deed. It is an admitted fact that complainant had availed a vehicle loan to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs and purchase one Tata make 407 truck. It is alleged by the complainant-borrower that though he was paying the dues regularly since the year 2009 but an outstanding is still pending on the complainant’s loan account. The OP-Bank has debited unnecessary amount like inspection charges, debit adjustment and unrealized interest recovery etc. and the OP-Bank has imposed the rate of interest varied from time to time violating the provisions of Banking Law. OP-Bank resisted the allegations by submitting that as per the sanctioned letter and hypothecation agreement executed between the complainant-borrower and the OP-Bank. The OP-Bank has rights and entitled to charges on its discretion in case of default, over dues, variation on rate of interest etc. as alleged by the complainant-borrower.
We had gone through the sanction(arrangement) letter dtd.1.12.99 and loan-cum-hypothecation agreement, which according to law is a contract between the parties, also it is the settle principle of law that parties entered into a contract can not deviate the terms and conditions unilaterally, further No court can interfere in terms and conditions of the contract unless it affects the public policy. On perusal of para-2 sub-clause(a)(c) and para 5 sub clause(b) of loan-cum-hypothecation agreementclearly defines that the OP-Bank has acted lawfully so far the allegations of the complainant borrower is concerned. Further the complaint is completely silent regarding particular date of transactions where the Ops have illegally charge/imposed or debited the amount for which the OP-Bank is not entitled to. During course of argument Ld. Counsel for complainant pointed out that as per the statement of account OP-Bank has illegally charged extra interest and debited an amount of Rs.28,207/- on dtd.30.11.11, Rs.9485/- on dtd.11.11.2011, Rs.3381/- on dtd.312.12.2011 and Rs.15,000/- on dtd.12.01.2012. Countering the submissions Ld. Counsel for OP-Bank submitted that these debits are calculated in accordance with the Banking accounting procedures and the same has been debited for unrealized interest reversed and unrealized interest recovered etc. It appears from the above submissions that the allegation of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant-borrower if any, it relates to accounting procedure which can be eradicated/settled on the discussions of both the parties. i.e. complainant-borrower and OP-Bank. If complainant desires he can take assistance of an account expert during the said discussions. That apart we do not see any deficiency in service in part of the OP-Bank in the present dispute.
During pendency of the proceeding this Forum directed the OP-Bank not to seize the vehicle, however during pendency of the proceeding OP-Bank issued a Notice to seize the vehicle which is filed by way of a Memo in spite of receipt of Rs.19,000/- as directed by this Forum. Ld. Counsel for OP-Bank submits that though the Notice has been served but OP-Bank has not persuaded to seized the vehicle with due regards to the order of the Hon’ble Forum. In this regard we cautioned the OP-Bank not to repeat this type of acts in future, if the Bank was anyway suffering financial loss by order of this Forum, legal options were open before the OP-Bank to take lawful steps, without intimating the Forum, when a complaint is pending no coercive action should be initiated without the knowledge of the Forum.
After discussions on accounts settlement as per our observation the deposited ordered amount be adjusted against the outstanding loan account of the complainant-borrower. Accordingly the direction issued on dtd.07.01.2015 is hereby vacated in addition that OP-Bank will not seize the vehicle till completion of the account settlement by the parties.
Having observations reflected above it is directed that complainant will approach by way of written application to the officials of OP-Bank for account, settlement, he may take assistance of an account expert having knowledge in the banking laws and regulations, similarly, the OP-Bank will co-operate the complainant-borrower on settlement of his loan account an accounting procedure. The order is to be carried out within one month of receipt of the order, on non-compliance of the order, defaulting parties will pay Rs.50/-(Rupees Fifty)only per day for the delayed period.
The complaint is allowed in part without cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 14th day of March,2016.
