Delhi

East Delhi

CC/56/2017

PREETI KHANNA - Complainant(s)

Versus

CORPORATE BANK - Opp.Party(s)

31 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 56/17

 

Smt. Preeti Khanna

W/o Shri Anil Khanna

R/o UG-4/D-56, Ganpati Villa

Kaushambi, Ghaziabad (U.P.)

Pin- 201010

                                                               ….Complainant

Vs.    

The Manager

Corporation Bank,

 563, Plot No.3,

Local Shopping Complex-2

Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi- 110096                                               …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 02.02.2017

Judgement Reserved on: 31.05.2019

Judgement Passed on: 03.06.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

          The present complaint has been filed by Smt. Preeti Khanna, complainant against Corporation Bank, OP under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

            Briefly stated the facts of the amended complaint are that complainant and her husband, Shri Anil Khanna, had availed home loan from OP vide loan account no. 056304301040035, which was sanctioned on 23.03.2004. It has been stated that in the year 2010 Prime Lending Rate System (PLR) was introduced as per which the rate of interest was to be revised as per base rate but OP did not revise the rate of interest. Marginal Cost of Funds based Lending Rates (MCLR) was introduced in the year 2013, according to which OP could revise the rate of interest as per base rate and had to migrate the complainant in the new system, which was not informed to complainant by OP and OP continued to charge interest @12.5% per annum. It has been further stated that till August 2016, though the rate of interest under MCLR was 9.450%, which even otherwise was more than the MCLR of other banks (which was 8.5%). OP in contravention with the guidelines issued by RBI had been charging interest in excess by 4% since 2013. Despite several visits to home branch and zonal branch of OP and mails the grievance of the complainant remained unaddressed. The complainant has stated that they were deprived of the benefit of the lower rate of interest and no changes had been made in the principle loan amount and only interest had been deducted w.e.f. September 2016 without any reason. Feeling aggrieved the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to refund the interest charged in excess @4% per annum w.e.f. 2013 to August 2016 or to adjust the same against the principle loan amount; Rs. 5,00,000/- alongwith interest @24% per annum from the date of filing; OP to pay higher rate of interest as paid by the complainant on the principle amount and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses.

            The complainant has annexed letter dated 04.11.2016 and 18.08.2016, letter of OP dated 17.12.2016, copy of the statement of account, copy of sale deed, mediation conciliation report dated 23.01.2017, letter of OP dated 24.08.2016, 20.12.2016 and 18.08.2016 have been annexed with the complaint.

            Reply was filed by OP upon service of the summons, where they have taken several pleas in their defence; such as the complaint was devoid of any cause of action; the complainant was assured that the rate of interest would be reduced as per law but not from 2004, as the reduction in the interest rate was always prospective and not retrospective, which was duly intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 24.08.2016. It was submitted that OP had informed the complainant regarding the PLR and MCLR system by way of letter, website, branch notice and as per the procedure the complainant had to approach home branch with a written request to get the home loan migrated to the prevailing rates upon payment of conversion charges. It was further submitted that MCLR was effective from 01.04.2016. Thus, the request of the complainant for the adjustment of interest with retrospective effect could not be accepted. Since, the grievance of the complainant had been addressed as and when she approached, thus no deficiency in services could be alleged on their part. Rest of the contents of the complaint have also been denied.

            Rejoinder was filed by the complainant, where the contents of the Written Statement filed by OP have been denied and those of the complaint have been reiterated.

            Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant where she has deposed on oath the contents of the complaint. She has got copy of the pass book for home loan account no. 056304301040035/CHOME/01/40035 alongwith copy of sale deed of the mortgaged property as Ex. CW1/1 (Colly.);  copy of Aadhar card of the complainant as Ex. CW1/2; copy of duly acknowledged complaint of date 18.08.2016 as Ex. CW1/3; copy of letter dated 18.08.2016, showing effective dates and rate of interest as Ex.CW1/4; letter bearing reference                                             no. 0563/ADV/CHOME/40035/138/2016-2017 of date 24.08.2016 as Ex. CW1/5; complaint dated 04.11.2016 duly acknowledged by OP and letter bearing reference no. 0563/ADV/CHOME/40035/138/2016-2017/ 201 of date 17.12.2016 had been exhibited as Ex. CW1/6 and Ex. CW1/7 respectively. Letter dated 20.12.2016 declining the request of the complainant had been exhibited as Ex. CW1/8; mediation report had been exhibited as Ex. CW1/9.

            OP have got examined Shri Hare Krishna Sahu, Chief Manager, Vasundhra Enclave, who has also reiterated the submissions made by them in their reply. He has got exhibited authorization passed vide Board Resolution dated 25.08.2009 as Ex.OP1/1. He has placed reliance upon copy of the letter dated 18.08.2016 as Ex.OP1/2; copy of letter dated 24.08.2016 and 26.08.2016 have been exhibited as Ex.OP1/3 (Colly.); copy of letters dated 17.12.2016, 20.12.2016, 24.11.2017 have been exhibited as Ex.OP1/4.

            We have heard the arguments of the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of OP. The complainant has alleged that OP did not give her the benefit of auto migration from PLR to MCLR system and continued to charge interest at a higher rate. The request of the complainant was declined on the ground that reduction of interest cannot be adjusted with a retrospective effect as the complainant had opted for switching over from floating rate option wherein the interest rate was linked to COBAR/ Base Rate to prevailing base rate linked slab rate applicable for housing loans, only on 26.08.2016 if we look at letter dated 24.08.2016 issued by OP where it has been stated:

“when the option to migrate interest rate linked to base rate was introduced all the customers have been informed by way of letters, SMS, website, branch notice board and also putting banners in the branch”.

            Thus, it is clear that a letter regarding same was issued to complainant as well, but OP has placed nothing on record to show that any such letter was issued to complainant, in that case the complainant was not informed regarding the proposal of migration to MCLR system. The complainant had a right to be informed by OP which has not been done in the instant case. On the other hand, the complainant herself was not vigilant enough to make sure that the benefits of the changed lending rates were being applied to her loan account or not. Therefore, she cannot be allowed to wake up at a belated stage and ask for adjustment of interest rates from retrospective date.

            Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint and to bring an end to the controversy, where both complainant and OP are equally at fault, we direct that complainant be given benefit of the changed/ revised rate of interest from 1^st April, 2015 (Being the mid period from 2013-2016). The complainant is not entitled to any compensation as she herself was also negligent in assertion of her rights.         

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

     

 (DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                                  (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

                      Member                                                                       Member    

                                                    (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                        President