Haryana

StateCommission

A/821/2018

SBI PANIPAT - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR. RAGHUVIR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

R.S.BADHRAN

12 Jul 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No.821 2018

                   Date of Institution:29.06.2018

          Date of Decision:12.07.2024

 

State Bank of India Branch RASME City Credit Centre, 1^st Floor, GT Road Panipat through its Branch Manager.

…Appellant

Versus

 

Dr.Raghuvir Singh S/o Sh.Amar Singh, R/o House No.39-40 Narain Singh Park, Panipat.

…Respondent

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President.

                    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Shri  Ravi Kant, counsel for the appellant.

                   Shri M.K. Bhardwaj proxy counsel for Sh.T.P.Singh, counsel for respondent.

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

          Opposite Party-Appellant-State Bank of India, has filed the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for challenging the order dated 25.04.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat whereby complaint filed by complainant-Dr.Raghuvir Singh was allowed with direction to the OP to withdraw the demand of Rs.2,67,876/- with immediate effect.  However, the OP shall be at liberty to impose penalty interest after 26.05.2016. The complainant was also entitled for a sum of Rs.6600/- for the mental harassment and litigation expenses.

2.      According to the complainant,  he along with his wife Dr.Sarabdeep Kaur had availed housing loan (Account No.30938964343) for the amount of Rs.11,90,000/- for purchase of plot in the year 2009 under SBI Reality Scheme.  After sanction of loan amount, the complainant has been paying EMI regularly without any fault. Since from the year 2009 to 2015, the OPs have not increased the rate of interest in the form of penalty.  Suddenly, OP increased the rate of interest in the form of penalty interest to the tune of Rs.2,67,876/- on the ground that complainant did not raise the construction on the aforesaid plot within two years of the disbursement of the loan amount.  The OP has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and has not increased the rate of interest from the year 2011 to 2015 and thereafter OP illegally demanded Rs.2,67,876/- as penalty interest from him. He got served legal notice dated 12.07.2016 through his counsel upon the respondent, which was duly received by the OP. However, the OP sent false and frivolous reply dated 25.07.2016 and refused to admit the claim of the complainant.  With above said allegations, the complainant prayed for directing the opposite party to withdraw the exaggerated interest amount or change the higher rate from the date of information i.e. 26.05.2016 on the balance loan amount of the complainant. It also prayed for directing the opposite party to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiencies in services, mental agony, harassment and financial loss, which is suffered by the complainant alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.  As the aforementioned act of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service, the complainant filed the instant complaint.

3.      On the other hand, opposite party contested the complaint by way of filing reply, raised preliminary objections about maintainability of complaint; complaint is barred by limitation; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and complainant has concealed the true and material facts while filing the present complaint.  On merits,  the complainant has  along with his wife Dr.Sarabdeep Kaur availed home loan of Rs.11,90,000/-  on 29.10.2009 under SBI Reality Scheme for purchase of plot and construction from  the OP-Bank. The scheme under which the complainant had availed the loan was very much in the knowledge of complainant, hence he was liable to pay the differential interest of Rs.2,67,876/- to the respondent bank.   As per the said scheme  of the OP-bank, the construction over the purchased plot was to be completed within two years of execution of loan documents.  In case, the construction of house was not commenced within the stipulated period the higher interest rate will be charged after the expiry of stipulated period. The complainant has not completed the construction over the said plot  within a period of two years.  Hence, the complainant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,67,876/-  on account of differential rate of interest to the OP-Bank.  It is also wrong and denied that OP-Bank suddenly applied the penalty interest to the tune of Rs.2,67,876/-, which is unwarranted, arbitrary and against the natural justice. Legal notice dated 12.07.2016 was duly replied. As such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and accordingly, prayer made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Ravi Kant, counsel for the appellant and Mr.  M.K.Bhardwaj proxy counsel for Mr.  T.P.Singh, counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire appeal has been properly perused and the record examined.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that complainant along with his wife Dr.Sarabdeep Kaur availed home loan of Rs.11,90,000/-  on 29.10.2009 under SBI Reality Scheme for purchase of plot and construction from the OP-Bank. As per the said scheme of the OP-bank, the construction over the purchased plot was to be completed within two years of execution of loan documents, but complainant did not raise construction over the said plot within the stipulated time. Hence, he was liable to pay the differential interest of Rs.2,67,876/- to the OP-bank.   Accordingly prayer has been made for accepting the appeal and set aside the impugned order.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent argued that complainant has been regularly paying the installments from the year 2011 to 2015. He is not liable to pay Rs.2,67,876/- as penalty interest amount to the OP.

7.      It is not disputed that complainant had availed loan from the OP for purchasing plot bearing No.1230 Block C situated at Ansal Sushant City, Phase-1, Panipat. The complainant has availed loan of Rs.11,90,000/- from the OP on 29.10.2009. The OPs vide letter dated  26.05.2016 imposed penalty of Rs.2,67,876/- on complainant for not raising the construction over the plot for which loan has been sanctioned.  As per terms and conditions of the loan agreement, it was incumbent upon complainant to raise construction over the said plot within two years from the date of sanction of loan, failing which, the complainant was liable to pay penal interest which comes to Rs.2,67,876/-. The complainant has stated that period of two years lapsed on 29.10.2011, whereas the OP has imposed penalty interest in the year 2016.  The OP never issued any letter immediately after expiry of two years term which comes to 29.10.2011. Besides this, copy of account statement pertaining to the said loan account shows that complainant was regularly paying the installments with regard to the loan availed by him. On the other hand, the OP has failed to place on record any document/evidence which could prove their genuineness with regard to issuing of demand letter in the year 2016 for not raising the construction on the said plot within stipulated period. The lapse has been on the part of the OPs.  The OP-Bank has been negligent in performing their duty with regard to the management of the said loan. Thus, imposing a penalty of Rs.2,67,876/- by the OP is illegal and the learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. The State Commission finds no reason or ground to interfere with the order of learned District Consumer Commission. Hence the appeal being devoid of merit stand dismissed.

8. Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- was deposited by appellant at the time of filing of this appeal. This amount is now ordered to be refunded to complainant-respondent against proper receipt, identification and verification as per rules and registry of this Commission is accordingly directed.

9.  

10.    A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for  perusal of the parties.

11.    File be consigned to record room.

 

12th  July, 2024                  Manjula                  S.P.Sood                    T.P. S. Mann

                                                Member             Judicial Member            President

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)