Date of Filling      :  28.06.2011.

                                                                                           Date of Disposal  :  27.01.2017.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR - 1.

PRESENT:  THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.,              …    PRESIDENT

                     TMT.  S.  SUJATHA, B.Sc.,                          …    MEMBER - I

Consumer Complaint No.27/2011

(Dated this Friday the 27^th day of January 2017)

S. Gowrishankar,

Door No.7/1A, Plot No.58,

Vengadachalam Street,

Sozhapuram,

Ambattur,

Chennai - 600 053.                                                            … Complainant.

/ Versus /

Indian Bank  Ambattur Branch,

Rep. by its Chief Manager,

No.123, MTH Road,

Ambattur,

Chennai - 600 053.                                                               … Opposite party.

This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 09.01.2017 in the presence of M/s. A.R. Poovannan, Counsel for the complainant and Mr. P.D. Ravichandiran, Counsel for the  opposite party and having perused the documents and evidences, written & oral arguments on the side of both sides this Forum delivered the following,

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party for seeking Rs.1,600/- for the interest charged prior to loan grant, Rs.4,399/- towards insurance premium charged, Rs.17,124/- towards processing fees, Rs.2,517/- incorrect debits in savings account, Rs.34,000/- towards excess interest rate applied, Rs.20,000/- towards interest on the above amounts and Rs.2,40.,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant with cost.

2.       The brief averments of the complaint is as follows:-

 The complainant along with his spouse Mrs. Malaini Gowrishankar took a joint home loan from Indian Bank, Ambattur Branch with Loan a/c. no.756809873.  The entire outstanding towards this loan was repaid in April 2010 and the loan currently stands closed. The complainant had lot of issues with Indian Bank right from the availing of the loan in Dec 2007 and some of them were addressed after innumerable phone calls, written requests, personal visits, RTI queries etc.  The current set of complaints are yet to be addressed through any of the above means and the recent effort approaching RBI Ombudsman Ref BO Che 8071/C2480/201011 was not successful as the Ombudsman had indicated that the subject matter of didn’t come under the purview of Clause 8 of RBI Ombudsman guidelines.  However, in its reply dated:19.01.2001, the RBI Banking of RBI Ombudsman had suggested that the complainant is free to approach any other Forum in this matter.  Hence, this complaint is being filed as a next to address the concerns of the complainant.

3.       The contention of written version of the opposite party is  briefly as follows:-

The opposite party denies the averments in the complaint except those that are admitted herein.  The RBI Ombudsman has also rejected his demand for revision of interest.  Then only, the complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum.  The loan amount was disbursed on 29.12.2007 and the same was credited to the complainants S.B. a/c.749283475 on 29.12.2007 itself and the D.D. for the closure of his home loan a/c with ING Vysya Bank was also taken on the same day itself and so the opposite party is in order in charging interest from 29.12.2007.

4.       As per the terms of the sanction, the property should be adequately insured and so insurance has been taken.  Regarding the processing fee of Rs.17,124/- the opposite party says as sufficient balance was not maintained by the complainant in his S.B. a/c, the processing fee was collected only at the time of release of advance.  In the sanction letter, no where it is stated that process fee is waived.  Regarding improper debit and minimum balance charges, on 29.12.2007, the date of release of advance Advocates’ Legal scrutiny report fee and  the Engineer’s fee of Rs.2,000/- was collected with adhesive stamp charges of Rs.40/-.  Apart from that, on 11.05.2008 a sum of
Rs.300/- was recovered from his S.B. a/c. towards typing charges for the memorandum of deposit of title deeds.

5.       Regarding incorrect rate of interest, the opposite party submits that for the subject loan, the repayment period is 240 months and subsequently, the repayment period was reduced to 180 months as per the complainant’s request and the excess interest charged Rs.26,272/- was refunded on 22.10.2009 and Rs.2,407/- was refunded on 06.02.2010.  The rate of interest competed is correct.  In every aspect, the complainant was given amicable replies and he is satisfied.  There is no deficiency in service, no incorrect charges of interest, no incorrect collection of insurance amount or other charges. There are no merits in the complaint.  Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

6.       In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted for his evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked.  While so, on the side of the opposite party, the proof affidavit is filed  and Ex.B1 to Ex.B15  were marked on his side.

7.       At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Forum is:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

8.     Written arguments filed and oral arguments also adduced by both sides.

9.       Point no.1:-

                According to the case of the complainant is that, he had availed home loan bearing the account number 756809873 from the opposite party and thereafter, the entire outstanding loan was repaid in April 2010 and thereby, the said loan stands closed and thereafter, it is found by the complainant that the interest charged in the home loan account for the period prior to the loan sanctioned and similarly, the insurance premium charged to the said home loan account and is still continue even the loan is closed and thereby, the amount has totally gone waste.  Though the complainant has no intension to continue with the scheme, the processing fees of Rs.17,124/- has been charged and incorrect debt in savings account about Rs.2,517/- not only that interest charged by the bank prior to the grant of loan and inspite of address by means of several phone calls, written requests, personal requests, RTI queries etc., the opposite parties has not complied the demands of the complainant.

10.     While so, on the side of the opposite party, it is contended that the allegations made in the complaint are all denied and in fact of the transactions occurred only after the complainant had availed the home loan and it was done as per the terms of the bank as contemplated under Reserve Bank of India rules and therefore, there is no merit in the case of the complainant.   The Reserve Bank of India has also rejected the complainant’s claim and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

11.     At this juncture, on careful perusal of the rival submissions put forth on either side, it goes without saying that the duty cast upon the complainant to prove the allegations made against the opposite party with relevant documents and evidence.  First of all, on careful perusal of the evidence of the complainant, it is learnt that the complainant took a joint home loan from the opposite party in account no.756809873 and the entire outstanding loan was repaid in April 2010 and currently, the loan stands closed.   It is further stated that the complainant had lot of issues with the opposite party from the time of availing of loan in December 2007 and some of them were addressed after innumerable  phone calls, written requests, personal visits, RTI queries etc. and also the complainant had approached the Reserve Bank of India,   Ombusman.  But not succeeded and not complied the queries of the complainant.  A copy of complainant’s SB account passbook is marked as Ex.A3.  The statement of loan account is marked as Ex.A2.  Further, the insurance taken at the time of filing of loan is Ex.A5.  The letter of the Banking Ombudsman dated: 19.01.2011 is marked as Ex.A6.  The reply to the complainant under Right to Information Act, 2005 of the Indian Bank dated:22.06.2009 is marked as Ex.A4.  The Revised Sanction Ticket along with the letter of the Indian bank dated 20.10.2009 is marked as Ex.A1.  The reply given by the Indian Bank is not correct regarding the queries raised by the complainant in respect of the interest charged, the processing fees, debts and minimum balance charges in savings account and insurance premium charged and therefore, the complainant has come forward to file this complaint.

12.     On the other hand, it is deposed on the side of the opposite party through his proof affidavit that the home loan availed by the complainant is admitted and the interest charged from 29.12.2007 and Ex.B1 is the loan statement and as per Ex.B2, the sanction letter, the insurance and process fees are chargeable similarly, Ex.B3 is the statement towards debit of Advocate’s fees, Engineer’s fees, stamp charges typing charges in 2008 itself.  It is further stated that the repayment period is of 240 months  which was later reduced to 180 months.  The excess interest charges of Rs.26,272/- was refunded on 22.10.2009 and Rs.2,407/- on 06.02.2010  respectively are marked as Ex.B4 & Ex.B5.   Ex.B6 is the Interest adjustment power given in Annexure 6 and the RTI reply of the Public Information Officer & General Manager (H & M) for the complainant’s application dated:24.12.2007 is marked as Ex.A7 and the RTI reply of the Public Information Officer & General Manager (P &D) for the complainant’s application dated:18.03.2009is marked as Ex.B8 and Ex.B9 is the RTI reply of the Appellate Authority & Executive Director for the complainant’s application dated:22.04.2009.

13.     It is further seen from the evidence that the Ex.B10 is the information given by the Public Information Officer & General Manager (MSME) under RTI Act, 2005 to the complainant’s application dated 03.10.2009 and inrespect of the closure of his application, letter given by the complainant is marked as Ex.B11 and the reply given by the Public Information Officer & General Manager (SP/P &D) for the complainant’s application dated:31.07.2010 is marked as Ex.B12.   Further, it is deposed that it is true that the insurance policy taken in the name of the complainant by the opposite party initially is marked as Ex.A14.  Subsequently, on receipt of the application from the complainant it has been changed into the name of the complainant is marked as Ex.B15 and in this regard, the reply of the bank dated 20.05.2009 under RTI act is marked as Ex.B13 and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

14.     At the outset, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        availed home loan and the same was disbursed on 31.12.2007 and the same was credited to the complainant SB account no.749283475 on 29.12.2007 itself and the DD for the  closure of the home loan account in ING Vysya Bank was also taken on the same day itself and for that the processing fees was also collected to the tune of Rs.17,124/- and the loan statement account is marked as Ex.B2.  Ex.B2 and Ex.A1 are one and the same.   On careful perusal of the sanction letter, it is annexed with terms that the property should adequately be insured and so the insurance has been taken and also it is clearly mentioned regarding the processing fees and raised Rs.17,124/-.  Furthermore, it is crystal clear from Ex.B2 there is no where stated that the process fees is waived.  In such circumstances, the allegations made in the complainant that the process fees has been waived is not correct.   Similarly, regarding the allegations about the collection of the incorrect rate of interest, it is learnt from the evidence of both sides that nearly the repayment period was fixed as 240 months and subsequently, it was reduced to 180 months as per the complainant’s request is not at all disputed.  While being so, as per Ex.B3, it is clearly seen that the excess interest charged Rs.26,272/- was refunded on 20.10.2009 and Rs.12,407/- was also refunded on 06.02.2010 respectively and therefore, the rate of interest computed is correct.  Hence, in this aspect also the evidence on the side of the opposite party is quite clear.  In this aspect, Ex.B4 & Ex.B5 also have been enlightened.

15.     In respect of the incorrect interest rate computed by the opposite party throughout the loan period it is seen from the evidence that as per the terms of the loan agreement and the housing finance the bank shall have right to reset the BPLR/ Tenor Premium / Spread any of them or all of them, either upwards or downwards and to know to substantiate the same Ex.B6 is marked.  The next thing regarding insurance premium collected by the opposite party, Ex.B13 to Ex.B15 have been clearly explained.  In respect of letters sent by the complainant under RTI act, the opposite party has then and there through Ex.B8 to Ex.B12.

16.     In the light of above facts and circumstances and the documents produced on the side of the opposite party, it is crystal clear that the complainant has not proved that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  But at the same time, the opposite party has disproved the allegations made in the complaint by means of relevant and acceptable documents before this Forum.  Thus the point no.1 is answered accordingly.

17.     Point no.2:-

As per the finding arrived in point no.1, there is no question of causing mental agony and hardship to the complainant as if, there is no deficiency of service admitted on the part of the opposite party.  Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint.  Thus, the point no.2 is answered accordingly.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No. cost.

Dictated by the President to the Steno-Typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 27^th   January  2017.

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT