BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1.          This complaint has been filed by the complainants under section 35 of C.P.Act 2019 (herein after referred as “Act”) against the OPs for the following reliefs.

1. Direct the OPs to refund the excess recovered EMI amount of Rs.2,14,699/-.
2. Direct the OP to pay interest @ 18% on the above excess recovered amount on recurring compounded quarterly basis from the date of completion of 144 months of fixed duration.
3. Direct the OP to pay the damages of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing inconvenience, sufferings, mental agony, stress, and anguish to the complainant.
4. Direct the OP to pay cost of the complaint and to grant such other reliefs.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:

The complainants have availed two home loans in the year 2004 from the OP and agreed to repay loan in 144 monthly installments with agreed rate of interest.

3.         It is further case of the complainants that they repaid entire amount and OP should have stopped recovery in the year 2016, but OP has recovered excess amount beyond year 2016.  On scrutiny of loan account, the complainants found that till March 2019 OP has recovered Rs.5,41,508/- against the loan of Rs.2,78,000/- showing outstanding liability of Rs.70,680/- in respect of loan account No.071-819668-220.  Similarly the OP have recovered Rs.6,96,329/- till July 2019 against the loan of Rs.3,67,500/- showing outstanding liability of Rs.1,12,446/-.  The OP has recovered in all 169 EMI i.e., excess of 25 EMI.  Total excess recovered is Rs.2,14,699/-.

4.         Despite legal notice dated 19.01.2019 the OP failed to refund excess recovered amount.  This act of OP amounts to deficiency of service.  Hence this complaint.

5.         In response to the notice, OPs appeared and filed version.  They admitted that loan transaction and advancement of two loan of Rs.2,78,000/-  and Rs.3,67,500/- for floating rate of interest at 7.5% p.a., and at 8% p.a., respectively.

6.         It is further case of the OP that the applicable floating interest rate is linked to retail lending rate of the OP.  In case of increase of interest rate EMI and tenure will be varied.  Accordingly the applicable rate of interest was charged on the loan of the complainants from time to time.  No excess amount is recovered from the OPs.  There is no deficiency of service.  In fact the complainants are liable to pay outstanding amount.  They requested to dismiss the complaint.

7.         The complainants file affidavit evidence of complainant No.2 and relies on 7 documents.  OPs have filed affidavit evidence and relies on 6 documents. Heard the arguments and perused the records.

8.         The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of the OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to reliefs mentioned in the complaint?
3. What  order?

9. Our answer to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:- Negative

      Point No.2:- Negative

       Point No.3:- As per the final order.

                                      REASONS

10.         Point No.1 AND 2:    Even though both the parties have reiterated their respective contention in the affidavit evidence and documents.  In order to appreciate the contention of both the parties, it is relevant to refer some of the admitted facts and documentary evidence.  Ex.A1 is the pre-approval for a home loan with statement showing advancement of Rs.2,78,000/- on 25.06.2014 with floating rate of interest.  On the date of this loan, the rate of interest is 7.5% p.a.  Similarly the second loan of Rs.3,67,500/- with floating rate of interest came to be sanctioned.  Ex.P2 and P3 indicate that even after payment of Rs.5,41,508/- and Rs.6,96,329/- respectively in respect of both the loans a sum of Rs.70,280/- was due from the complainants on 08.03.2019  in respect of first loan and Rs.1,12,446/- in respect of the second loan outstanding was as on 1^st July 2019.

11.         Ex.P4 indicates that first time on 14.03.2018 the complainants addressed a letter that they have paid EMI of 144 months, but they nowhere whispered what was the changed rate of interest between 2004 to 2018.  The complainants by issuing Ex.P5 and P6 two notices called upon the OPs to refund excess amount.  Ex.P7 is the letter of OP that their officials will visit the house of the complainants and called upon the complainant to approach M/s.H.G. Enforcement Agency.

12.         The complainants have not placed any evidence that the agreed rate of interest was fixed and they never agreed to pay floating rate of interest.

13.         The OP in support of its contention have placed six documents.  Ex.R1 indicates that the loan of Rs.2,78,000/- was sanctioned with floating rate of interest at 7.5% and repayable in 144 months.  Ex.R2 and R4 are the two agreement of loan wherein complainants agreed to pay floating rate of interest.  Ex.R3 is the sanctioning letter in respect of sanctioning of loan of Rs.3,66,500/- with floating rate of interest at 8% on the date of sanctioning the loan with repayment period of 144 months.  The OP has also produced a payment towards principal interest and outstanding balance from February 2005 to July 2019 and August 2005 to July 2019.

14.         It is relevant to note that the OP has produced Ex.R5 and R6 about changed rate of interest from time to time.  The complainants do not dispute these rates of interest.  Ex.R5 and R6 clearly indicate that the rate of interest were changed from time to time between 8% to 15.5% during relevant time.  Accordingly OPs have charged the rate of interest on both the loan accounts of the complainants.  When the agreed floating rate of interest is charged on both the loans to the complainant, automatically repayment period and repayment amount were automatically enhanced.  Therefore complainants are not in right in saying that they have paid all the outstanding in April 2016.  The complainant without disclosing the applicability of floating rate of interest have approached this Commission with unclean hands by suppressing the theory of floating rate of interest applicable to both the loans.  Absolutely there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.  Thereby, complainants are not entitled to any reliefs in this case.

15.         POINT NO.3:     In view of the discussion referred above, the complaint requires to be dismissed. In the result, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is Dismissed without cost.
2. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.
3. Return the extra documents to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 23^rd day of August, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1 :

HAV*