Complaint filed on: 17-09-2019
Disposed on: 30-09-2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
CC.No.159/2019
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT
SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB. (Spl)., LADY MEMBER
Complainant: -
Sri,H.K.Gowdegowda
S/o Late Karigowda,
Aged about 60 years,
R/o Tumakuru Milk
Union Ltd., Mallasandra,
Tumkur Taluk.
(By Mr.P.Mahesh,Adv.,)
V/s
Opposite parties:-
- Chief Manager/Administrative Officer, Indian Bank, Netaji
Subhash Road, Kolkata,
West Bengal.
- Manager/Chief Manager,
Indian Bank, J.C.Road,
Tumkur.
(By Sri. N.R.R., Adv.,)
:ORDER:
BY SRI.KUMARA.N., MEMBER
This complaint was filed by the complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to issue No due certificate and clearance of mortgage and guarantee and pay the compensation of Rs.236317/- towards deficiency of service and damages due to mental agony along with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization.
- Opposite Parties are Chief Manager/Administrative Officer Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata, Indian Bank West Bengal and Manager/Chief Manager,-Indian Bank, J.C.Road, Tumkur. (hereinafter called as OP No 1 and OP No 2).
- It is the case of the complainant that he was working at Tumakuru Milk Union, Mallasandra, Tumkur and he approached the OP No.2 for housing loan of Rs.7,50,000/-. After perusal of all the documents and bank formalities, the said loan was sanctioned by the OP No.2 on 01.02.2010 under Housing Finance Scheme, accordingly the monthly installment was Rs.9,510/per month, with 114 installments and the rate of interest was 8.25% pa. The complainant was informed that the loan will be closed by the end of August 2019, i.e. after the 114 installments. The complainant authorized the OP No 2 / Bank to deduct the installments from his monthly salary, though his Employer i.e. Milk Union. The OP No.2 was deducting the installment regularly and there was no due of installments by the complainant in any month. In spite of this, when the complainant retired on 30-08-2019, by the time 114 installments deducted and the complainant approached the OP No.2,to take no due certificate, the OP No.2 informed that, still there was a balance of Rs.2,36,000/-and refused to issue No due certificate and clearance of mortgage and guarantee. The complainant approached the OPs for many time, but OPs refused, hence this complaint.
- After the service of notice, the OP 2 counsel, appeared and filed version and memo stating that OP No 1 and 2 are the same, requested to adopt the same for OP No 1, hence hereafter called OPs. The OPs counsel in his version condensed that, all the averments in the complaint are false and denied, and admitted the facts that, the complainant approached the OP No.2 for housing loan of Rs.7,50,000/- and after perusal of all the documents and bank formalities, the said loan was sanctioned on 01.02.2010 under Housing Finance Scheme, accordingly the monthly installment was Rs.9,510/per month, with 114 installments and the rate of interest was 8.25% pa, as such the complainant paid the installments, which were varying, due to floating interest as per RBI guidelines and there were no deficiency on OPs part, and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. On 11-02-2020, the complainant counsel filed IA No 1,under order VI Rule 17r/w section 151 of CPC to permit the complainant to insert para5(a) after para5 and insert Rs 236317/-, upon hearing from the both the sides, said IA rejected.
6 .The complainant counsel filed his affidavit evidence along with 10 documents, which were marked as Exs.P1 to P10 and the OPs counsel filed their affidavit, along with one document, which marked as ExR1.
7. On 26-07-2021, the complainant counsel filed IA No2, under order VI, Rule 17 r/w 151 of CPC, to amend the prayer column, since OPs counsel called out absent, the amending the prayer column by inserting Rs 236317/- instead of Rs 100000/- will not change the nature of case, hence said IA No2 allowed and the complainant counsel amended the complaint and produced amended complaint.
8. On 09-11-2021, the complainant counsel filed IA No 3, under order VI Rule 17 r/w 151 of CPC to amend the OPs as Indian Bank instead of Allahabad Bank due to Bank merger, said IA allowed and the complaint not carried out the amendment, as such on 21-12-2021, the complainant counsel filed IA No 4 to amend the complaint, to insert OPs as Indian Bank instead of Allahabad bank, said IA allowed, and the complainant counsel carried out the amendment in the complaint and produced amended complaint with copy to other side. Further on 05-04-2022 the complainant counsel filed IA No 5 under order VI Rule 17 r/w 151 of CPC to amend the complaint, the OPs filed objections to said IA and we heard the arguments of OPs, but on 30-07-2022 the complainant counsel filed memo, stating that not pressing said IA, hence said IA rejected.
9. We have heard the arguments of complainant and OPs counsels and the points that would arise for determination are as here under:
1) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service/unfair contract of OPs?
2) Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?
3) What order ?
10. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1: partly in the affirmative
Point No.2: As per the final order
:REASONS:
11. Point No.1 to 2: The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the OPs have failed to issue no due certificate and clearance of mortgage and guarantee, even after the complaint paid all installments of housing loan and the OPs informed the complainant, that still Rs 236317/ due in housing loan, when he approached personally on 30-08-2019, i.e., the day of the complainant retired from the service and after the 114 installments of said housing loan paid to OP No 2. The complainant submitted that whatever outstanding, should have collected in 114 installments or before his retirement. The OPs not given any intimation or notice in this regard, there by caused mental agony at the time of retiring from the service to the complaint, and prayed to allow the complaint and award compensation.
- . The OPs counsel argued that, the complainant availed the housing loan and as per Bank and RBI norms, initially fixed and later floating interest charged, which was as agreed by the complainant at the time of availing said loan, and the complainant approached to get no due certificate on 30-08-2019, the OP No 2 denied to give the same, as still Rs 236317/- outstanding in complainant housing loan account and said outstanding amount of Rs 236317/- cleared / paid by the complainant employer on 07-09-2019, as such the complainant paid the all the installments of said loan and OPs ready to give no objection certificate to the complainant, as there is no deficiency on OPs part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
13. The complaint produced Ex P1, a copy of loan under Allahabad Bank housing finance scheme, where in the complainant sanctioned Rs 750000/- housing loan with interest of 8.15 % ,pa, initially and later floating interest, EMI of Rs 9510/- with 114 installments.ExP2, copy of the payment advice, and Ex P3 to ExP10 were complainant copy of statement of account. The OPs counsel produced one document, ExR1, a copy of complainant loan statement of account.
14. The documents ExP3 to Ex P10 and ExR1, revels that said housing loan rate of interest initially 8.15pa, later on 16-08-2010 changed to 8.250 % to 8.75% pa, on 14-12-2010, 8.75 % to 9.50 %, on 01-02-2011,9.50 % to 9.75%, on 24-02-2011 9.75 % to 10.00% on 06-05-2011 10.00% to 10.50%, on 15-07-2011 10.50% to 10.75%, on 01-08-2011 10.75% to 11.25%, on 01-05-2012 11.25% to 11.00%, on 18-02-2013 10.70% to 10.75%,on 08-05-2015 10.75% to 10.45%, on 05-10-2015 10.45% to 10.20%, on 01-12-2017 10.20% to 10.10% on 09-01-2018 10.10% to 8.30% and finally on 09-01-2019 changed to 8.30% to 8.80%.
15. In this case the complainant not produced any documents to prove that, he approached the OPs several time, but, the OPs admitted in their version / objection, that the complainant approached OPs.
- . The OPs not produced any documents or taken defense that the OPs, intimated the complainant that, increased interest rate on various dates related to said housing loan imposed.
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case between ICICI Bank Vs. Maharaj Krishna Datta And Ors. Dated: 3rd August 2015, confirm the order passed by the state commission, which held as under:-
“the State Commission held that in view of the agreement between the parties, payment of interest @ minus 1.5% of the prevalent FRR, which could be reset by the bank based on the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. It was further held that the intimation of such resetting should be given to the complainants/constituents”.
Further, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case between M/S IDBI Bank Ltd., & Anr. Vs Subhash Chand Jain & Anr on 15 October, 2012 has held as under:-
“In our view the concept of floating rate of interest flows from the regulation of rate of interest by the RBI guidelines and not arbitrarily by the service provider without informing or telling the reasons for increasing the rate of interest in general terms and not that there is inflationary market.”
18. On perusal of the guidelines of RBI, that the methodology of computing the floating interest rates should be objective, transparent and mutually accepted, in case, rate of interest if enhanced by the bank from the agreed rate of interest, the consent of the borrower is required to be taken. Even if the loan case of the borrower is to be reviewed on increasing rate of interest the same should be in the knowledge of the borrower.
19. In this case, the floating rate of interest has been increased by the OPs without any notice / consent of the complainant, even neither the annual account statements were circulated to the complainant nor any intimation with regard to increase / decrease of the rate of interest was informed even orally. The complainant came to know, only when he approached the OPs on 30-08-2019, after the 114 loan installments paid / retired from his service.
20. The OPs admitted in their version that, on 07-09-2019, the employer of the complainant cleared / paid the complainant loan due of Rs 2,36,317/-, the OPs would have been settled the matter by convincing/explaining the facts to the complainant, by giving No due certificate and clearance of mortgage and guarantee to the complainant, but the inaction on the part of OPs not only a huge burden has come on the shoulders of the complainant, but it has caused mental and physical harassment by pursuing the litigation and by engaging counsel for the redressal of his grievance and filed this complaint on 17-09-2019. This act of the OPs not only amounts to deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice, and caused harassment to the complainant. The complainant prayed to award Rs.2,36,317/- as compensation, but we are of the opinion that it is just and proper to award 25% of the said amount i.e. Rs.59,079/- towards compensation to the complainant with litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- and also it is appropriate to direct the OPs to give No due certificate and clearance of mortgage and guarantee. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;
:O R D E R:
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part with costs.
The OPs are directed to pay Rs 59,079/-, towards compensation and Rs 10,000=00 litigation cost, with 8% interest from 17-09-2019 to till realization. The OPs are further directed to give No due certificate and clearance of mortgage and guarantee to the complainant.
The OPs are further directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of knowledge/receipt of this order otherwise it carries penalty of Rs 150/ Day.
Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.
