Kerala

Idukki

CC/126/2021

Dhanya mol - Complainant(s)

Versus

Federal Bank - Opp.Party(s)

13 Mar 2023

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :  14.9.2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  13^th  day of  March,  2023

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                  PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

CC NO.126/2021

Between

Complainant                                          :     Dhanyamol, W/o. Gopalakrishnan,

                                                                   Maravathankal,

                                                                   Murickassery P.O.,

                                                                   Vathikudy, Idukki.

          (By Adv: K.B. Selvam)

And

Opposite Parties                                     : 1. The Branch Manager,

                                                                   Federal Bank, Thopramkudy,

                                                                   Thopramkudy P.O.,

                                                                   Vathikkudy, Idukki – 685 609.

      2. The Regional Manager,

                                                                   Federal Bank Regional Office,

                                                                   Kalarickal Bazar,

Pala Road,  Thodupuzha P.O.,

Idukki – 685 584.

Representing the Federal Bank, Aluva.

 (Both by Adv: Sijimon K. Augustine)

 

O R D E R

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This case originates from a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short).  Case of complainant is briefly discussed hereunder :

 

          Complainant is residing in Murickassery, within the jurisdictional limit of this Commission.  1^st opposite party is manager of Thopramkudy branch of Federal Bank and 2^nd opposite party is the regional manager having its office at Kalarickal Bazar, Pala Road, Thodupuzha, representing the Bank as such.  Complainant and her husband had obtained a housing loan of Rs.10,000/- from opposite parties on 8.1.2016.  Original sale deed bearing No.1246/1/2011 of SRO Rajakumari was given as security for the said loan.  This property has an extent of 4 ares 96 sq.m. and situated in Sy. No.1/1-2289-2 of Vathikudy Village.  Property is agricultural land.  Copy of sale deed is produced along                                                                                                         (cont.....2)

• 2  -

with the complaint.  Patta which is prior title deed  is also produced.  Tax paid receipt 13.4.2021 is also produced.  Complainant and her husband are in possession of another property having an extent of 4 acres for which there is no patta.  This is lying in Sy. No.1/1 of Vathikudy Village and is agricultural land.  Complainant and her husband had applied for agricultural loan in connection with this property.  A loan of Rs.14 lakhs was sanctioned by 1^st opposite party based upon security of earlier title deed relating to patta land of 4 ares 96 sq. m..  Interest for agricultural loan was at 12% per annum.  On 5.2.2016, agricultural loan amount was deposited in the joint bank account of complainant and her husband.  Though the amount was effectively utilised for the purpose of raising agricultural crops, due to successive crop failures, floods and situation created by Covid 19 pandemic, complainant and her husband had defaulted in repayment of both loan instalments.  Even then they have remitted Rs.2,76,258/- towards repayment of agricultural loan.  On 24.8.2021, complainant and her husband had jointly approached opposite parties and had requested for payment of entire loan amount after sale of 1 acre of agricultural land.  However, they have demanded Rs.30 lakhs for closing the aforesaid agricultural loan.  At the time of sanctioning the loan, agreed rate of interest between parties was 12% per annum. But, opposite parties are now demanding interest at 18% per annum.  Opposite parties are demanding excessive interest, penal interest and notice charges not provided for in loan agreement.  There were repeated demands from the side of opposite parties for closure of agricultural loan with interest at 18% per annum.  Though opposite parties had orally agreed to grant more time to complainants for closing the loan, they had despite this, come to the house of complainant on 11.9.2021 and demanded immediate closure of loan with 18% interest.  Complainants were threatened that property given by them being secured asset will be proceeded against under the provisions of SARFAESI Act.  Opposite parties have no right or authority to take possession or proceed against the asset because it is agricultural land which is evident from patta grant.  There is also threat that credit rating of complainants will be reduced as per CIBIL proceedings.  Complainants hence have come to this Commission with a prayer for a direction against opposite parties to reduce excess interest charged in accordance with the guidelines given by RBI, Central Government and also to exclude penal charges and notice charges.  They seek Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs. 

 

          2.  Both opposite parties have entered appearance and written version is seen filed by 1^st opposite party.  No separate written version is filed by 2^nd opposite party.  Contentions addressed in the written version are in brief as follows :

 

          Opposite party submits that complainant and her husband, who is the present Village Officer at Vathikudy Village have jointly applied for a housing loan of 10 lakhs on 8.1.2016.  The loan was sanctioned on the same day upon execution of loan                                                                                                               (cont.....3)

• 3  -

documents including demand promissory note, security delivery letter and loan agreement.  This loan was collaterally secured by equitable mortgage of 0.04.96 hectors of land in Sy. No.1/1-36/1 in Vathikudy Village in Idukki Taluk, which was jointly owned by complainant and her husband.  The co-applicant Gopalakrishnan is a necessary party to this proceedings.  Memorandum of deposit of title deeds given by complainant and her husband on 9.1.2016 confirms this liability. Both had agreed to repay the loan amount in 124 equated monthly instalments with interest at 9.93% per annum with monthly rests.  Both have agreed to pay varying rates of interest from time to time as per directions of RBI, as prescribed by bank and had also agreed to pay additional interest at 2% per month in case of default in repayment of principal amount.  Both had also availed an agricultural loan of Rs.16 lakhs on 5.2.2016.  The Agricultural Cash Credit loan was  secured by hypothecation of crops in 4 acres of land owned by them and collaterally secured by equitable mortgage of aforesaid 4.96 hectors of land covered by  sale deed.  Title deeds were re-deposited for agricultural loan for creating equitable mortgage.  It is incorrect to say that the agricultural cash credit loan was sanctioned at the rate of 12% interest, it was sanctioned at the rate 12.58% (Base Rate + 2.95%). Interest was serviced annually and loan was repayable with accrued interest and charges on or before 5.2.2019.  Both complainants had agreed to pay interest at varying rates as fixed by RBI and as prescribed by the Bank.  They had also agreed to pay additional interest at the rate of 2% in case of default.  Present rate of interest applicable to loan transaction of complainant is 14.08%  interest with annual rests + 2% penal interest.  It is incorrect to say that complainant and her husband were unable to pay the loan instalments due to crop failure, floods and Covid 19 pandemic.  Husband of complainant was a Government employee.  Despite this, complainant and her husband were highly irregular in repayment of loan.  There was no payment even before the flood and Covid pandemic.  It is incorrect to say that they have remitted Rs.2,76,258/- towards agricultural cash credit loan.  They have remitted only Rs.2,41,000/-.  Opposite parties have not demanded interest at the rate of 18%.  As per the account truly and correctly maintained by opposite parties, an amount of Rs.27,53,602/- with interest from 5.2.2021 is outstanding towards agricultural cash credit loan and Rs.6,50,457/- with interest  from 8.8.2021 is outstanding towards housing loan availed by complainant and her husband.  Complainant and her husband are liable to pay loan amount with interest as agreed.  Transactions of banking company are governed by provisions of Banking Regulation Act and directives issued from time to time by RBI.  There is no violation of law or any directives given by RBI.  Allegations that opposite parties had gone to the house of complainant and threatened them of proceedings under SARFAESI Act and lowering of CIBIL Score are entirely false.  Further dispute is with regard to loan due is of civil nature and will not be maintainable before this Commission.  Opposite parties on these premises pray for a dismissal of the complaint with costs.

 

                                                                                                          (cont....4)

- 4  -

          3. After filing of written version, case was posted for steps and then for evidence.  Despite availing repeated opportunities, complainants have not tendered any evidence.  However, this Commission had marked 4 documents produced from their side without formal proof as P1 to P4.  No evidence was tendered by opposite parties, since there is no further evidence from the side of complainant.  On the date of hearing, both complainant and opposite party were absent.  There was no representation for both.  Hence  case was taken for orders.  Now the point which arise for consideration are :

1)   Whether complaint is maintainable ?

2)  Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties ?

3)  Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for ?

4)  Final Order and costs ?

 

4.  Point Nos.1 to 3 are considered together :

 

          Complainants have alleged that excess interest and charges are collected from them in connection with both loan accounts.  Though he has a case that opposite parties had met him in person and threatened him that they will take distraint proceedings and there will be lowering of CIBIL score, these pleadings are not supported by  evidence.   His case that excess interest and charges are collected are also not proved by Exts.P1 to P4.  According to opposite parties, interest rates are charged on the basis of loan agreement executed, as per circulars issued by RBI and directions issued from the Bank.  They also submit that transaction of business is being supervised by RBI and higher authorities of bank and therefore, they cannot operate outside the provisions of Banking Regulations Act, circulars and directives issued by RBI and bank’s Head Office.  These contentions are substantive.  There was no attempt by complainant to produce copy of loan agreement or to summon original loan document from opposite parties.  Case projected that excess interest has been charged along with excess charges is not proved.  Hence does not survive for scrutiny.  Deficiency in service is not proved. However, these allegations are of deficiency in service and complaint cannot be dismissed at the threshold on the premises that bank is not a service provider. Yet in view of lack of proof of allegations raised, deficiency in service is not made out. Complainant is not  entitled for the reliefs prayed for.  Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered accordingly. 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                          (cont.....5)

 

 

• 5  -

 

5.  Point No.4 :

 

          In the result, this complaint is dismissed, under the circumstances, without costs.  Parties shall take back  extra sets of copy without delay.

 

                            Pronounced by this Commission on this the  13^th   day of March, 2023

 

                                                                                            Sd/-      

                                               SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                                                         Sd/-

       SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                         Sd/-

     SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

 

 

                                                                             Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

                                                                        ASSISTANT REGISTRAR