Complainant Mrs.Madhu Nanda through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has sought issuance of necessary directions to the opposite parties to withdraw the notice of Recall of bank dues being illegal, null and void based on false reasons and further directed to update her account with effect from 1.7.2010 till date by charging the rate of interest as per agreed rate of interest i.e. base rate + 2% which is also the interest on CC limit and restrained the opposite parties from charging interest as per old promissory note of BPR system which is itself is violating the Bank’s own commitment and also directed them to rehaul her account after making necessary corrections in it. The opposite parties be also directed to pay compensation on account of mental and physical harassment suffered by her from the last 7 years to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-, in the interest of justice alongwith legal expenses and other relief which may be fit.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that she has her personal C.C.Limit account bearing No.02780510000182 for Rs.20,00,000/- with the opposite party no.3 for last many years. She filed a consumer complaint against the opposite parties in the year 2012 and the matter has been compromised as per which the opposite party no.3 admits their guilt of fraud/cheating on their part and accepts her claim vide letter dated 2.4.2013 and counsel from the opposite party gave settlement in this Hon’ble Forum to that respect. In the meantime, R.B.I. introduced base rate system with effect from 1.7.2010 and the interests were reduced considerably. But as usual with malafide intentions the opposite party Bank, kept on charging higher rate of interest even upto 17.5% per annum, which is highly against the norms of RBI and Bank’s own Fair Trade practice. She approached the opposite party no.3 many times for making request of not to charge interest over and above 2% of the base rate i.e. 10.2% as agreed in previous complaint. The opposite party gave assurance that account will be corrected soon but her account was never corrected till date. A written request dated 21.8.2014 through speed post was also given to the opposite party no.3 and same was received by the bank. In its reply, opposite party no.3 openly admits that they are charging 16.30% per annum which is otherwise over and above the instructions and guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and much higher than the Base rate plus 2%. The conduct of the opposite party no.3 is highly arbitrary. Moreso, after admitting all her claims in this Hon’ble Forum, the opposite party no.3 is still charging over and above the base rate of interest i.e. 16.30% than Base rate + 2% as agreed by the Bank, which is otherwise wrong, illegal and against the RBI norms and Bank’s own commitment. She moved an application Under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act for compliance of the order dated 30.11.2015 and for initiating contempt proceedings against the opposite parties. During the course of execution proceedings, the opposite parties have submitted her calculation of accounts, but in the said calculations, the base rate was again higher/exorbitant and not upto the date. The opposite parties have not compiled with the instructions of this Ld.Forum passed by way of order dated 30.11.2015 and remained adamant to charge higher interest rate, against the banking rules and regulations. Due to this illegal act of the opposite parties and also on account of remained adamant on their illegal demand, she has filed the instant complaint after withdrawal of the execution on dated 17.5.2016. She has next pleaded that on 17.5.2016 the complainant had withdrawn the execution application and opposite parties have sent Notice of Recall of Banks Dues of her account and alleged in the same that her account has been classified as NPA without any notice and also alleged that she is availing UCO Mortgage Cash Credit Facility which is otherwise simple cash credit limit which fact is totally wrong and incorrect, as it was already held by this Ld.Forum that Account is Cash Credit Account and not the UCO mortgage Cash Credit Facility. The alleged notice is illegal, null and void. Not only this, the opposite party has wrongly calculated the Bank dues of Rs.17,62,882.87 Paise which is totally wrong and incorrect. She has further pleaded that at no point of time, her account remained inoperative even for a month. Infact from the bare perusal of the account statement from 1.7.2010 to 30.4.2016, it is very implicit that her account remained operative. The exact outstanding calculations from the Charted Accountant her account is Rs.12,12,646.00 Paise. Due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties, she has suffered great loss and also suffered mental harassment. Thus, there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply through their counsel taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complaint is barred by resjudicata and the complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint against the opposite parties. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant is having personal C.C. Limit Account bearing No.02780510000182 for Rs.20,00,000/- as agreed between the parties with the opposite party no.3 for last many years. Infact the complainant is in default of the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement. As per the Agreement dated 12.6.2009, the loan/limit was to be adjusted in 84 equal monthly installments and the limit was to be reduced 15% annually and if he failed to do so, there is a panel interest of 2% annually. The complainant has failed to oblige the abovesaid terms and conditions of the Bank and thus become defaulter of the terms and conditions of the loan/limit. But even then the Bank authorities have not charged the penal interest from the complainant. Now the complainant has become defaulter and her Loan was declared as NPA on 30.4.2016 due to non payment of the dues i.e. Principal + Interest. The complainant in the year 2012 filed the Consumer Complaint against the opposite parties no.1 to 3 and the matter has been compromised. Actually, as per agreement dated 12.6.2009, the complainant had availed loan under UCO Mortgage Scheme and as per the loan sanction Agreement, the agreed link rate of interest at the time was BPLR i.e. 12.5% and agreed rate of interest was 2% P.A. above BPLR subject to minimum rate of interest 14.5% which is variable and subject to R.B.I. instructions and guidelines issued from time to time as applicable on the C C Limit in question. On 1.7.2010, thus as per RBI Guidelines, Bank linked all advances with Base rate, as per Circular dated 9.7.2010, thus as per RBI Guidelines, Bank linked all advances with Base rate, as per Circular dated 9.7.2010 bearing No.CHO/RM/4/2010-2011, BPLR was 12.25% and the rate of interest was 2% above BPLR i.e. 14.25% and after switching to Base rate, it became base rate plus 6.30% i.e. 14.30%. Now presently the Base rate is 10.20% and Base rate plus 6.30% is the rate of interest. The complainant is relying upon the document which relates to Scheme called UCO Property Loan. The scheme was launched in December 2013 and as per Scheme on a single property, a single person can avail loan and there must be minimum income of Rs.4 lacs annually. The complainant and her husband have availed two loans/limits on a single property. The complainant cannot stake her claim that she is liable to pay the interest as per the UCO property Loan, as she has availed loan/limited under the said scheme to avail interest at the rate of Bank’s Base rate + 2% which is also subject to change as per Bank’s Policy. The complainant has executed Promissory Note dated 12.6.2009, Loan Application Form dated 24.5.2009 and other relevant loan documents on 12.6.2009 whereby she has agreed upon to pay the minimum rate of interest of 14/50% per annum with monthly rests for value received. It has further submitted that in the Loan Application form dated 24.5.2009, the complainant has herself admitted that she will make repayment of the loan amount in 84 equal monthly installments. Besides this loan, another loan in the nature of Cash Credit Loan Account in the name of husband of the complainant has also been sanctioned amounting to Rs.20 lacs. Both these loan accounts fall under the UCO Mortgage Cash Credit Scheme. The complainant and her husband have themselves consented for paying the minimum rate of interest at the rate of 14.50% Per Annum or BPLR plus 2% Per Annum subject to change whichever is on higher side. So now they cannot back out from the documents which they had executed at the time of availing the facilities of loan. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C21 including Ex.C14-A and closed the evidence.
5. Sh.Vijay Kumar, Branch Manager of opposite parties tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP12 and closed the evidence.
6. From the pleadings and evidence on record we find that the prime
dispute with the complainant side has been the excessive ROI(rate of interest) charged to his Cash credit Loan A/c in violation of the Bank’s own circularized guidelines as applicable to his category of Loan with allegations of unauthorized entry-fiddling in his Loan A/c on several occasions by the OP3 Bank Branch. The complainant had even earlier filed ‘two’ nos of consumer complaints with the forum but finding no permanent respite had to file the instant complaint with the prayed relief as hereinbefore.
7. The opposite party Bank(s) counsel vehemently rebutted and averred counter-allegations upon the complainant also deposing the slipping of the Loan A/c into the NPA (non performing assets) category on account of poor repayment record and its ultimate final ‘recall’ by the Bank’s Authorized Officer under the Sarfaesi Act, 2002. The OP Bank has also confirmed the due compliance of the forum’s orders pertaining to the earlier ‘2’ nos of consumer complaints.
8. We have intently examined the evidence as produced on records so as to interpret the statutory merit and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference of the documents somehow ignored to be produced knowingly or not by the litigants. We find the time ripened to line-thrash evidence to legally resolve the intertwine situation.
(1)Directions to the titled opposite party Bank(s) to withdraw the Notice of Recall;
We are not inclined to interfere with the matter pertaining to issuance of the Recall Notice as the complainant has always been at liberty to avail himself of the prescribed remedy. Moreover it has been stated by the complainant during the course of arguments that his account has been regularised by the OP Bank itself during the pendency of this very complaint and there were no rebuttals from OP Bank side in this regard hence this issue stands settled and need not to be decided/adjudicated by this Forum.
(2)Further, directions to the OP Bank to update and re-haul his Loan A/c through necessary corrections w e f 01.07.2010 onwards by charging the ROI @ Base Rate + 02% P.A. and thus restraining them from charging interest @ old Pronote (promissory note) based BPLR system;
Presently, we find that the above relief endeavors for the one one-time statutory remedy to the one prime dispute pertaining to availing of the banking and financial services as per the custom, precedent and statute prescribed norms that somehow stood adjudicated vide the forum’s orders dated 30.11.2015 disposing of the previous Consumer Complaint No 500 of 2014 exhibited here as: Ex.C8 with its governing paragraphs ‘6’ reading as: “ Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the credit facility extended (by the Op Bank) to the complainant was non-priority ‘ cash-credit’ (under annual review) on short term basis for a period less than 3 years and shall be subjected to ‘levying of interest’ under that category, only.And paragraph ‘7’ reading as: “In the light of the all above, we are of the considered view that this complaint can be best disposed of by issuance of a directive to the OP Bank to get conducted a special audit of the interest charged in the complainant’s account from the Bank’s Concurrent Auditors and deliver a copy of the checking report of rates and calculations of interest etc to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of copy of orders and the complainant, if still, disagreeing, shall be at liberty to contest these calculations in the court of competent jurisdiction, if he so desires or is so advised.” We further find that the OP3 Bank has stated/ deposed vide its written statement/ affidavit Ex.OP1 in compliance of the above orders but the documents produced in evidence do not validly support the said confirmation to its genuine and truthful entirety. The opposite party Bank has neither rebutted nor explained the explicit improbability of the herein produced documents: i) Ex.C2 dated 05.10.2009 with the OP3 Bank confirming the continuation of cash credit facility to the tune of Rs.20 Lac; ii) Ex.C13/Ex.OP2 loan application of 24.05.2009 (Sunday) for UCO Mortgage (Long Term) Loan duly appraised by OP3 Bank Senior Manager with its repayment in 84 equated monthly installments but the Promissory Note Ex.OP5 executed for short term loan (i.e., overdraft/cash credit a/c etc); and iv) the Incorrectly filled in (wrong format A-21) Ex.OP6/ Ex.C14 Guarantee Deed of 12.06.2009 (to be used when Borrowers are a Company or a Firm) which is not the case of the complainant as she is an individual and not a Company or a Firm ; And, further the OP Bank(s), somehow ignoring to produce the related Sanction letter for exact determination of one sure but exact resolve for reasons best known to them alone. We also find that both the complainant and the OP Bank(s) have produced their own claims of Rate of interests and Calculations interpreting the applicable Instruction Circulars as per their own perceptions and suitability without sharing these with one and another in order to have reached a somewhat mutually acceptable graceful settlement. Had the OP Bank here applied the instruction circulars to the subject matter along with their brains it would not have exposed their immaturity in play so as not to have reached an amicable settlement. Thus, we find and direct to the OP Bank to depute their own ‘auditor(s)’ to re-fabricate afresh the instant Loan (cc limitA/c) account right from the applicable date i.e., 01.07.2010 @ Base Rate + 02% to till date and finalize the outstanding through application of applicable interest to reach the one ‘mutually reached’ consented and accepted un-ambiguous figure.
9. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OP Bank not to charge interest as per old BPLR system and ORDER the OP Bank to update and overhaul the Account of the complainant with effect from 1.7.2010 till date by charging the rate of interest as per Base rate + 2% and refund the ‘extra’ amount so charged during the pendency of the Loan (along with the ‘interest’ component etc) to the complainant besides to pay to the complainant a token sum of Rs.25,000/- as cost and compensation for having harassed her throughout within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of orders otherwise the so awarded total aggregate amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA with effect from the date of orders till actually paid.
10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
January 18, 2017 Member.
*MK*
