SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant has filed this complaint U/s12 Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking to get an order directing the 3rd opposite party to Exonerate the petitioner from the housing loan liability he availed and to refund the EMI for the month of March, April and May 2018 and to return the title deeds deposited with the opposite party bank for creating equitable mortgage and to pay Rs.5 lakhs as compensation towards the loss of business and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the mental strain, imputation defamation caused by opposite party No.3 bank together with cost of the proceedings of this case.
The facts in brief, are that the complainant was having one housing loan transaction with the OP Bank No.3 above having NO. HSG-LN-Non Capitalize bearing the housing loan account No.09920600008561 of bank of Baroda Tellicherry Branch with savings Bank Account No.099201000006872. The said housing loan to the tune of Rs.5,95,000/- was sanctioned on 02/02/2003 on the basis of an agreement without giving copy to this complainant, and also informed that complainant that the total amount shall be returned in 180 EMI ie on 30/06/2018. Accordingly without break the complainant paid the full EMI as per the variation in interest rate and also as per the calculation given by the OP No.3, and after the return of full EMI as directed by the OP No.3, in the month of February 2018, the complainant demanded to return the title deeds and other connected documents along with clearance certificate, the attitude of the OP NO.3 changed and simply dodged from their responsibility. It is further submitted that though the complainant continued his request to return the title deeds with loan clearance certificate, the OP No.3 continued their lame excuses and while so the OP NO.3 has taken three excess installments from the SB Account of the complainant without informing the complainant, for the month of March, April and May 2018, since this attitude was amount to cheating and as such the complainant put the SB account inactive. Due to the continuous request of the complainant the loan officer of the bank informed the complainant, there is a balance of Rs.22995.26 is outstanding as per the ledger, in the head of interest, late payment and other incidental charges. It is submitted that though the complainant made the full payment of 180 EMI as directed by the banks the OP No.3, not fulfilled their duty by return of the title deeds. Complainant alleged that the OP 3 has committed fraud in calculating the loan account of the complainant. There is no amount due to by OP No.3 by this complainant. It is also to be submitted that as usual, this complainant as approached the banking ombudsman, Thiruvananthapuram and since the jurisdiction value limit of compensation is restricted up to 0.1 million rupee, the complaint submitted by the complainant was rejected and hence the petition before this forum.
The OPs in its reply, stated that the loan availed of by the complainant, was on floating rate of interest. It was further stated that at the time of granting loan, though the EMI fixed was Rs.6,304/- a lesser amount of Rs.5,695/- alone was collected from his SB account and credited to his loan account from 2011 onwards.
Due to the variation in payment of EMI, after the elapse of 180 months, a sum of Rs.39,396/- was outstanding to be paid by the complainant, Though the bank demanded for the payment of the balance amount, the complainant refused to discharge the liability. The system automatically recovered Rs.17,346.74/- from the SB account of the petitioner and credited to the loan account which will cover EMI for the month of March, April and May. Thus there was balance of Rs.22,986.26/-. The bank demanded to pay the balance amount and close the loan account on several occasions, but the complainant refused to pay the same.
The parties led evidence, in support of their case. After that the learned counsel for the parties filed their written argument notes. The learned counsel of complainant also made oral argument.
We have gone through the evidence and record of the case carefully and considered the submissions of both learned counsel.
The counsel of the complainant, submitted that, the housing loan was taken by the complainant on 17/02/2003 for Rs.5,95,000/- and paid the EMI regularly and completed the payment of full EMI of 180 monthly installment of Rs.6,304/- each by February 2018. He further submitted that the complainant was making payment of equal monthly installments, as per the agreement, executed between the parties. He further submitted that the dispute was with regard to the arbitrary action of the OP in recovering of Rs.17,346.74/- from the SB account of the complainant and credited to the loan account for the month of March, April and May 2018 and directing the complainant demanding to remit the balance amount of Rs.22,959.26/- vide e-mail. He further submitted that though the complainant requested to the OP Bank to return the title deeds with loan clearance certificate, OP bank reluctant to return the documents and also three excess installments were recovered from the complainant’s SB account without informing him. He further submitted that the OP was, thus, deficient, in rendering service and resulted in to unfair trade practice.
The counsel for the OP submitted that the loan was obtained by the complainant, on floating rate of interest and he was to pay the same in 180 equal monthly installments. He further submitted that the rate of interest was changed, as per the RBI instructions. He further submitted that the amount was charged from the complainant, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties and the complainant is bound by the terms and condition of the said agreement (Ext.B2). He further submitted that there was no arbitrary demand was raised by the OP from the complainant. He further submitted that on variation in interest will be adjusted in the principal amount or interest of a particular month. When the rate of interest is reduced, the adjustment towards the principal amount will be more. EMI will not be changed owing to variation of interest. Further submitted that there was neither unfair trade practice nor deficient in rendering service.
In going through the submissions by the counsel for the parties, it is realized that there is no dispute that the complainant has taken housing loan of Rs.5,95,000/- from OPs bank. It is also not disputed that the same was obtained floating rate of interest. Ext.B2 is the loan agreement executed between complainant and OP3 bank and the said agreement was signed by the complainant. According to this agreement, the complainant agreed that 2nd para clause 4 is as “Equated monthly installments so fixed is for the convenience of the borrower where by the interest payable towards the loan is spread over the entire term of the repayment fixed. The payment of all such equated monthly installments should not be construed as full repayment/settlement of loan account. On payment of equated monthly installments, residual amount, if any, in the account due to debiting of overdue/penal interest, additional interest as a consequence of revision in interest rate, other incidental charges etc., shall be paid separately by the borrower. Security/ies obtained in respect of the loan shall be released by BOB only after satisfaction of the debt.
From the terms and conditions of the Ext.B2 agreement, it was clear that the EMI could be varied by the OP bank from time to time, on account of various interest rate, as the loan, was taken on floating rate of interest. The complainant was thus bound by the terms and conditions, contained in the aforesaid documents. The complainant could not come forward to say that the terms and conditions, contained in the agreement, were in any way, no acceptable to him. Here complainant failed to prove that he had remitted 180 EMI in accordance with floating rate of interest promptly to his housing loan account. So we cannot find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties
For the reasons stated above, the complaint, being devoid of merit, must failed and the same is dismissed with no order as to cost.
Exts
A1- E-mail copy dated 03/07/2018
A2- Reply and account statement dated 05/07/2018
A3- Complaint dated 11/07/2018
A4- E-mail reply send by OP No.3 dated 11/07/2018
A5- E-mail copy stopping phone information from collection department
A6- Reminder dated 18/07/2018
A7- Reminder to E-mail message by OP No.3 dated 26/07/2018
A8- Complaint to higher officers address dated 28/08/2018
A9- 2289 No. Reserve bank complaint dated 15/09/2018
A10- Complaint to ombudsman & its reply dated 19/09/2018
A11- Petition and judgment copy of Hon’ble High court dated 17/08/2019
A12- Provisional certificate dated 20/01/2017
A13- SMS message copy issued by OP No.3
A14- Statement copy and covering letter dated 27/08/2019
A15- Plaint and summons before the Thalssery Munsiff court (copy)
A16- Written statement dated 17/11/2021
A17- Registered lawyer notice dated 23/10/2019
B1-
B2- Loan agreement
B3-Statement of OP showing rate of interest is varying during the loan period (subject to proof)
Pw1-Complainant
Dw1-Sujeesh Kumar M- Witness of OP3
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
