IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 28th day of February, 2018
Filed on 28.03.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.101/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party-
1. Sri. Viswanathan 1. The General Manager
Thapasya, General Manager’s Office
S.L.Puram.P.O, Union Bank of India
Cherthala, Alappuzha. 139 Broadway, Chennai
Pin 688 523 Pin. 600 101
2. Smt.Geetha 2. The Manager
Thapasya, Union Bank of India
S.L.Puram.P.O, Cherthala Branch,
Cherthala, Alappuzha. Karunakara Buildings,
Pin 688 523 A.S. Road Cherthala,
(Adv.Anila Peter Kochin) Alappuzha.
(Adv.C.Parameswaran)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
Complainants availed a housing loan Rs. 7,00,000/- from the opposite party. The loan was opened on 29/12/2000 and the closing date was 13/3/2010. According to the ledger statement, the estimated monthly installment (EMI) is Rs. 9,744/-, that means the interest to be charged was 8.75%per annum. The petitioners paid the entire amount demanded by the bank ie, Rs. 12,00,444/- and closed the account on 12-3-2010. If the EMI Rs. 4,744/- the total amount to be paid for the housing loan at the closing date was Rs. 9,93,888/-. But the bank collected from the petitioners Rs. 12,00,444/- while the account was closed. Hence the bank collected from the petitioners an excess amount of Rs. 2,66,556/- and it was because of the different interest rates charged by the bank time to time on the loan amount. The loan was sanctioned based on a fixed rate of interest at 8.75% per annum. Bank did not give copy of the loan agreement to the petitioners. Hence the petitioners were ignorant about the real rate of interest of the loan. But against the above condition, the bank collected the EMI at a fixed rate of interest of 13.5% per annum for the first two years, which was violation of the loan agreement. This shows that the petitioners were cheated by the bank. The petitioners submitted the request to change the rate of interest charged from high fixed rate to low floating rate of interest because the bank made the petitioners to believe that the fixed rate of interest charged for the loan was 13.5% and not 8.75% . Had it been known to the petitioners that the actual fixed rate of interest of the loan was 8.75%, the petitioners never request for a change in the rate interest from fixed to floating rate. During the pendency of the loan difference arose regarding the amount payable and the interest to be charged, whether it is 8.75% or 13.5%, the petitioners raised a dispute before the Banking Ombudsman, who after hearing found that interest payable for the housing loan is 8.75% and not 13.5% as claimed by the respondents. An excess amount of Rs. 2, 66,556/- was collected from the complainant and opposite party inform cared to refund the excess amount collected. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complaint is filed.
2. Version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
The complainant jointly availed a Housing Loan for Rs. 7,00,000/- from the opposite party, Union Bank of India Cherthala Branch on 29-12-2000 at an interest rate of 13.5%(Fixed rate) per annum which was repayable in 102 monthly installments of Rs. 11,570/-. Necessary contractual agreements were executed by the complainants favoring the opposite party. The complainants also submitted a letter dated 05-01- 2001 instructing the opposite party to transfer Rs. 11,520.00/- from their Savings Bank Account No. 7054 to the Housing loan on 15th day of every month. The opposite party executed the request, from the month of February 2001. The accounts stands closed on 13-3-2010. The allegation that the loan was sanctioned fixed rate at 7.8 % per annum and opposite party collected at a fixed rate 13.5% per annum the violation of the loan agreement on finance and hence denied. The change in the interest rate for the housing loan availed by the complainant is known to other and repayment is made accordingly. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1 documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A6. The opposite party was examined as RW1 documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 to B7
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. It is an admitted fact that complainant availed a loan for Rs. 7,00,000/- from the opposite party bank on 29-12-2000 and the loan was closed on 11/3/2010. According to the complainant at the time of sanctioning loan the bank informed the complainant that housing loan was sanctioned on fixed rate of interest at 13.5% per annum. Accordingly the EMI collected by the bank from the 1st month of prepayment was Rs. 11,520/- each. The allegation of the complainant is that the ledger statement of the bank made clear that the fixed rate of interest decided by bank was 8.75% per annum. But the bank collected the interest at the rate of 13.5%. According to the opposite party the loan was sanctioned to complainant at 13.5% rate of interest. Opposite party produced the sanction advice and it marked as Ext.B4. They further stated that on the basis of letters submitted by the complainant they reduced the interest rate and it was intimated to the complainant. The change in interest rate for the present loan availed by the complainant is known to them and the repayment made accordingly. While cross examine the complainant he admitted that he had availed income tax exemption for several years for the interest charged in the loan account. So it is clear that whatever the interest rate, the complainant availed the benefit of tax exemption from the income tax department by producing the statement issued by the opposite party bank. After availing the benefit knowingly by the complainant he has no right to challenge this method of charging interest in the account. Complainant failed to produce the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and hence the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th February, 2018.
Sd/-Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/-Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Viswanathan .C (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of Statement of Account
Ext.A2 - Copy of statement of Account
Ext.A3 - Letter dtd. 29/12/2009
Ext.A4 - Letter dtd 28/01/2010
Ext.A5 - Judgment dtd 19/11/2014.
Ext.A6 - Pass book
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Joshi.P.V (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Letter dtd 11-7-2002
Ext.B2 - Letter dtd. 18/12/2001
Ext.B3 - Letter dtd. 19/2/2002
Ext.B4 - Sanction Advice Receipt
Ext.B5 - Letter dtd.18/12/2001
Ext.B6 - Letter dtd.11/07/2002
Ext.B7 - Report.
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:-br/-
Compared by:-
