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 charge the rate of interest as per the norms and as per agreed base rate limited interest and restrained the opposite parties from charging interest 6.50% over and above the base rate of 10.2% interest i.e. 16.30% which in itself is violating the Bank’s own commitment and also directed them to overhaul her accounts after making necessary corrections in it. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment suffered by her from the hands of the opposite parties, in the interest of justice.
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 is paying interest regarding her cash credit account to the extent of the enjoyment of limit. The bank has taken requisite guarantee from her regarding the personal loan limit and at no time she was held defaulter by the opposite party. She has further pleaded that in the year 2012 she filed consumer complaint against the opposite parties no.1 to 3 and the matter was compromised, as per which the opposite party no.3 admits their guilt of fraud/cheating lacs of rupees on their part and accepts her claim vide letter dated 2.4.2013 and counsel from opposite party gave statement in this Hon’ble Forum in this respect. The act and conduct of the opposite party no.3 is highly condemnable as her previous complaint was compromised and decided by this Hon’ble Forum. 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 approached the opposite party no.3 many times for making request of not to charge interest over and above 2% 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. 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. 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. 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. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to dismiss with costs.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence.
5. Sh.Puran Singh Bhadwal, Branch Manager of opposite parties tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1, alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP11 and closed the evidence.
6. We have carefully examined the available evidence on the record file so as to interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference for some documents ignored to be produced by the OP Bank. We observe that the prime dispute pertains to ‘charging of interest’ upon the Bank credit duly disbursed to the complainant as admittedly made available by the OP Bank. Another collateral dispute again pertains to ‘ROI’ (Rate of Interest) by way of ‘classification’ of facility as ‘cash-credit’ or ‘term-loan’. The OP Bank (suo-moto) issued letters Ex.C3 & Ex.C10 that clearly resolve the dispute as the facility has been admittedly indicated as ‘cash-credit’ and the Banks’ claim of its self auto-reduction gets defeated on account of the non-production of ‘sanction-letter’ for reasons best known to them, alone. 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. Further
we observe that the dispute pertains to settlement of accounts (charging of interest) involving interest calculations on ‘daily product’ basis and that too at the circularized changed rates for different time-periods; as such its finalization involves complex calculations (on daily product basis) at the correct ROI (rates of interest) for different time-slab periods. Further, the bank facility was disbursed to the complainant on 12.06.2009 when the applicable ‘interest’ was BPLR (Bank Prime Lending Rate) based/ linked and the same was converted to BR (Base Rate) based/ linked with effect from 01.07.2010 vides Ex.OP6. Also, the interest rates etc need be determined and applied to the principal loan amount of the credit limit utilized by virtue of various circularized interest tables exhibited here as Ex.OP7 to Ex.OP10 and others alike. The OP Bank has impliedly shifted its stand towards categorization of the present loan a/c (as per its comfort & convenience) and as such the charged interest need be subjected to audit by professionals so as to let the ‘accuracy’ transpire.
7. In the light of the all above, we are of this considered view that this complaint can be best disposed off 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 from 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.
8. 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)
November 30, 2015 Member.
*MK*
