IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2014
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.117/2013 (Filed on 11.09.2013)
Between:
1. K.O. Varghese, aged 75,
Kizhakkedathu,
Nannuvakkad Muri,
Pathanamthitta.
2. Deepa Sara Varghese,
D/o. K.O. Varghese,
-do. –do.
3. Toms Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
Makkamkunnu,
Pathanamthitta,
Rep. by Managing Director,
Thomas Varghese Oommen. ….. Complainants
(By Adv. Joseph. K)
And:
Indian Overseas Bank,
Indu International Building,
College Road,
Pathanamthitta,
Rep. by Branch Manager. ….. Opposite party
(By Adv. R. Chandran)
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
Complainants filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows: 2nd Complainant is the daughter of the 1st complainant and the 3rd complainant is a company represented by its Managing Director Mr. Thomas Varghese Oommen who is the 1st complainant’s son. The 1st and 2nd complainants have joint fixed deposits to the tune of Rs.42,48,000/- with the opposite party bank vide Fixed Deposit Receipt No.511201098, 511201356 and 511201029. Complainants 1 and 2 approached opposite party during March 2012 for a personal loan of Rs. 34,82,900/- on the security of the said fixed deposits. The complainants availed personal loans like this on earlier occasions also. The complainants requested that the said loan amount to be credited to their account and the same be transferred to the account of the 3rd complainant. The Chief Manager of the opposite party also confirmed that the interest rate would be 1% more of the fixed deposit interest. The officials of the opposite party obtained the signature of the complainants on several printed forms. The 3rd complainant was also made to affix the company seal on every printed form. Opposite party told the complainants that signature of the 1st and 2nd complainant and the company seal of the 3rd opposite party is required for the proposed loan transaction. Accordingly, a loan of Rs.34,82,900/- sanctioned. The said amount was transferred to the account of the 3rd complainant. Later, it is realized that the rate of interest fixed for the loan is 14.50%, which is against the confirmation given by the opposite party. So the 1st complainant sent a letter dated 28.02.2013 to the Chief Regional Manager of the opposite party for rectifying the difference in the rate of interest. On the basis of the said letter a reply was received on 20.04.2013 stating that the loan was sanctioned to the 3rd opposite party and the applicable rate of interest for the said loan is 14.50%. It was only on receipt of the said letter, complainants realized the opposite party had willfully defrauded the complainants by sanctioning the loan to the 3rd complainant on the guarantee of the complainants 1 and 2 at 14.50% interest. Before getting the reply letter dated 20.04.2013 opposite party has not issued any papers in connection with the loan with an ulterior motive to put the complainants in dark. Moreover, opposite party willfully avoided in demanding any documents from the 3rd complainant company required for sanctioning loans to a company. On account of the above said willful act of the opposite party, the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.1,21,000/- by way of additional interest. The 1st complainant submitted complaints before the Chairman and Managing Director of the opposite party and before the banking Ombudsman in this matter. But they dismissed the same on their finding that the loan was sanctioned to the 3rd complainant and the interest rate charged is correct. The 1st and 2nd complainants approached the opposite party for personal loan on the security of their fixed deposits. Opposite party after obtaining signatures of the 1st and 2nd complainant as well as the seal and signature of the 3rd complainant by making the complainants to believe that the loan is being sanctioned on the terms requested by them. But the opposite party sanctioned the loan to the 3rd complainant on the guarantee of the 1st and 2nd complainant. The above said act of the opposite party is against the directions of the complainants and thereby they have suffered financial loss. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of Rs.1,21,000/-, the excess interest collected by the opposite party together with 12% interest along with compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and for the realization of the cost of this proceedings.
3. Opposite party filed their version with the following main contentions: Opposite party admitted the loan transaction between the complainants and the opposite party. According to the opposite party the loan in question was sanctioned to the 3rd complainant at the rate of 14.50% per annum as per the application submitted by the 3rd complainant. The fixed deposits of complainants 1 and 2 are furnished as the security for the said loan by the fixed deposit holders. The interest charged for the said loan is the normal rate fixed by the bank. All other allegations against the opposite party are false and hence denied. Opposite party has not committed any fraud or any illegal act in the said loan transaction. The documents in respect of the loan transaction clearly shows that the 3rd complainant is the borrower and the 1st and 2nd complainants are the sureties and the security for the loan is the fixed deposits in the name of the sureties and the loan amount was withdrawn by the 3rd complainant through his account. The loan amount was used for the business of the 3rd complainant. Further the complainants 1 and 2 had no connection in the business conducted by the 3rd complainant and they are not the borrowers. The complainants has not suffered any loss due to any of the acts of the opposite party and the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service to the complainants and what so ever done by the opposite party in this transaction is proper and legal. With the above contentions, opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost as they have not committed any deficiency in service.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
6. The Point:- The complainants case is that the 1st and 2nd complainants availed a personal loan of Rs.34,82,900/- from the opposite party on the security of the fixed deposits in the name of the said complainants. Complainants also directed the opposite party to credit the loan amount to their account and to be transferred to the account of the 3rd complainant. The complainants opted the said type of loan for getting the benefit of low interest rate. For getting the loan, complainants put their signature and submitted other required documents etc. before the opposite party as directed by them. Accordingly, the loan was sanctioned but later they realized that the rate of interest for the said loan is 14.5% and the said rate is much higher than the rate of interest for this type of loan availed by the complainant. So the complainants sent a letter to the Chief Regional Manager of the opposite party stating the facts with a request for rectifying the difference in the interest. A reply was received stating that the loan was sanctioned to the 3rd complainant as he is the applicant for the loan and the 1st and 2nd complainants are only the sureties in the loan and hence the rate of interest fixed is correct. The complainants came to know that the loan was sanctioned to the 3rd complainant only on getting the said letter. Thereafter, the complainants sent letter to the Managing Director of the opposite party and a complaint to the banking ombudsman in this regard. But they also rejected the petition by upholding the stand of the opposite party. Opposite party willfully created the loan transaction documents in such a way to make the 3rd complainant as borrower for getting more interest. The above said act of the opposite party is totally against the directions and the interest of the complainants which puts the complainants to financial loss and mental agony and the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the 1st complainant filed a proof affidavit for the complainants in lieu of their chief examination along with 6 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A6. Ext.A1 is the photocopy of the loan application dated 24.03.2012 for Rs.34,82,900/- in the name of the 3rd complainant. Ext.A2 is the credit sanction advice dated 01.09.2012 issued by the opposite party in the name of the 3rd complainant. Ext.A3 is the letter dated 20.04.2013 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A4 is the copy of a petition dated 26.03.2013 submitted by the 1st complainant before the Chairman and Managing Director of the opposite party. Ext.A5 is another letter dated 24.04.2013 issued by the 1st complainant in the name of the Chairman and Managing Director of the opposite party. Ext.A6 is a copy of the complaint filed by the 1st complainant before the banking ombudsman.
8. On the other hand, the main contention of the opposite party is that the loan in question was sanctioned and given to the 3rd complainant and the said loan is given on the security of the fixed deposit receipts of complainants 1 and 2 and complainants 1 and 2 are the sureties of the borrower. Since complainants 1 and 2 are not the borrowers, the opposite party is unable to give concessional rate of interest entitled to the borrowers who takes loan on the security of the fixed deposit receipts held by them. Complainants 1 and 2 are not the borrowers and they have not made any application for availing any loan for them on the basis of the fixed deposit receipts in their name. All other allegations of the complainants are false. Thus they argued that they have not committed any deficiency in service to the complainants.
9. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite party, they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour. But they have cross-examined PW1 on the basis of their contentions.
10. In view of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the available materials on record and found that the parties have no dispute with regard to the loan in question. The allegation of the complainants is that the 1st and 2nd complainants approached for a personal loan on the security of the fixed deposits in their name issued by the opposite party bank expecting the concessional rate of interest for the loans availed by the fixed deposit holders on the security of their fixed deposits. Opposite party also assured the same and obtained their signature in the forms required for sanctioning the loan. But later, they came to know that the opposite party willfully sanctioned the loan to the 3rd complainant and made the 1st and 2nd complainants as the sureties of the 3rd complainant/borrower. According to the complainants, opposite party acted like this for cheating the complainants with an ulterior motive to avoid the concessional rate of interest and for getting normal rate of interest for the loan sanctioned to the 3rd complainant. But the main contention of the opposite party is that the 3rd complainant company is the borrower of the loan and 1st and 2nd complainants are the sureties of the borrower and the loan was granted to the borrower accepting the fixed deposit receipts of the 1st and 2nd complainants as the security for the loan and as such they are not able to sanction loan with concessional rate of interest entitled for the fixed deposit holders personal loan.
11. On the basis of the above contention, we have perused the documents marked as Exts.A1 and A2. As per Ext.A1 loan application, it is seen that the 3rd complainant had applied for the loan and as per Ext.A2, it is seen that the said loan was sanctioned to the 3rd complainant. Further, it is seen from Ext.A1, that the complainants No.1 and 2 are the sureties of the borrower. From the above exhibits, it is clear that the 3rd complainant company is the borrower and the 1st and 2nd complainants are the sureties of the borrower in the loan in question. Though the complainants claims that 1st and 2nd complainants approached for personal loan on the security of the fixed deposit receipts in their name, they have not adduced any evidence to substantiate their contentions. The documents produced by the complainant itself shows that they are not the borrowers. In the circumstances, we are constrained to accept the contentions of the opposite party that the concessional rate of interest is only available to the borrowers who avails personal loan on the basis of the fixed deposit receipts in their name. Therefore, we find no merits in this complaint and it is liable to be dismissed.
12. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 15th day of January, 2014.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainants:
PW1 : K.O. Varghese
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants:
A1 : Photocopy of the loan application dated 24.03.2012 for
Rs.34,82,900/- in the name of the 3rd complainant.
A2 : Credit sanction advice dated 01.09.2012 issued by the opposite
party in the name of the 3rd complainant.
A3 : Letter dated 20.04.2013 issued by the opposite party in the name of
the complainant.
A4 : Copy of a petition dated 26.03.2013 submitted by the 1st
complainant before the Chairman and Managing Director of the
opposite party.
A5 : Letter dated 24.04.2013 issued by the 1st complainant in the name of
the Chairman and Managing Director of the opposite party.
A6 : Copy of the complaint filed by the 1st complainant before the
banking ombudsman.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) K.O. Varghese, Kizhakkedathu, Nannuvakkad Muri,
Pathanamthitta.
(2) Thomas Varghese Oommen, Managing Director, Toms Motors
Pvt. Ltd., Makkamkunnu, Pathanamthitta,
(3) Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Indu International
Building, College Road, Pathanamthitta.
(4) The Stock File.
