Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/71/2014

Dinesh Chauhan S/o Rajinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Overseas Bank - Opp.Party(s)

None

16 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 71 of 2014.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 31.01.2014

                                                                                    Date of decision: 16.06.2017.

 

Dinesh Chauhan son of Shri Rajinder Singh Chauhan, aged about 45 years, resident of House No.4, New PWD, NIT Campus, Kurukshetra, through his father Shri Rajinder Singh Chauhan.

                                                                                                 …Complainant.

                                    Versus
 

1. Indian Overseas Bank, Gobindpuri Branch, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager.
2. Indian Overseas Bank, Regional Office: SCO No.11, Sector 7C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its General/Regional Manager.

          

                                                                                     …Respondents.  

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER

 

 

Present:           None for the complainant.

                       Sh. JS Anand, Advocate, for respondent.

 

ORDER (Ashok Kumar Garg, President)

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed by Shri Rajinder Singh Chauhan, being father and authorized person of the complainant Sh. Dinesh Chauhan (hereinafter will be referred as complainant) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 amended upto against the respondents (hereinafter will be referred as OPs).

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged, are that the complainant was studying in Punjab and passed entrance test of Medical for BAMS Course in the year 2005 and the complainant had allotted seat in Desh Bhagat Ayurvedic College and Hospital Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab. After that the complainant has approached the OP No.1 for taking educational loan and after verification and completing all the formalities the OP Bank disbursed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in the year of 2005  and in this regard an agreement was reduced into writing between the parties. At that time it was agreed that the interest on the loan amount will be charged at the floating rate i.e. at BPLR which is fixed by the OPs Bank as per instructions /guidelines of the RBI. Further it was also agreed that if the complainant will pay the interest regularly, a rebate of 1% will be given to the complainant. The complainant had been paying the loan amount along with interest there on regularly and clears the entire loan amount in the month of June, 2010. After that complainant had demanded the statement of account and on perusal of the statement of account, the complainant was astonished that OP Bank had charged the excessive interest than that of agreed interest and even have charged penal interest @ 2% wrongly and illegally by showing the overdue amount, whereas there was no overdue amount against the loan, upon which the complainant approached the official of the OP Bank and asked about fact but the officials of OPs Bank refused to do the same. After that the complainant obtained the information under RTI Act and as per information received, the OP Bank has charged excessive and penal interest of Rs.38,959/- from the complainant by ignoring the guidelines/instructions of the RBI, which constitutes the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and lastly prayed for directing the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.38,959/- along with interest thereon from the date of deposit till its realization and also pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OP Bank appeared and filed its written statement taking some preliminary objections such as:- complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; there is no cause of action; the complainant is also guilty of concealing the true and material facts as the complainant had earlier filed similar complaint on the same facts and on the same set of allegations before this Forum which was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.10.2013, complaint is hopelessly time barred; the complainant was not a minor and in case of minor the litigation can be filed through guardian but where the person concerned  is major he has to file the litigation. In the present case the complainant has simply mentioned that he is filing the present complaint through his father but has not mentioned as to whether he has authorized his father to file this complaint being special or general power of attorney or in what other capacity. As such, in this case the father of the complainant is not competent to file this complaint and on merit it has been admitted that loan amount was disbursed against the completion of the formalities. The floating rate of interest i.e. at BPLR fixed by the OP Bank was chargeable as per guidelines of the OP Bank/head office. Further it has also been admitted that in case the complainant continued to pay interest fixed regularly per month, he would entitled to rebate of 1% towards interest. It has been further mentioned that complainant continued to pay interest regularly till 11.07.2006 and thereafter, he committed default and subsequently he gave a written letter that he cannot pay interest  regularly and so he do not want to avail the facility of rebate of 1% towards interest. Further, it has been mentioned that for the period during which the complainant paid interest regularly, he was gave rebate as per rules however, compound interest total sum of of Rs.524/- was charged from the complainant for the period during which the complainant committed in default in payment of interest per month. Further it has been mentioned that in the month June 2010, the complainant suo moto cleared the loan amount. Rest contents of the complaint were denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     In support of his case complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A  and photocopy of certified copy of order passed in CC No.194 of 2011 deiced on 30.10.2011 as Annexure C-1, photocopy of SPA dated 22.11.2013 as Annexure C-2, photocopy of interest chart of the OP Bank with effect from September, 2005 to June, 2010 as Annexure C-3, photocopy of information obtained under RTI as Annexure C4 to C-11, photocopy of calculation sheet of interest as Annexure C-12, photocopy of information under RTI Act, as Annexure C-13 and C-14, photocopy of calculation of interest made by the complainant as Annexure C-15, photocopy of scheme of education loan as Annexure C-16 to C-19 and closed the evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence documents such as -photocopy of letter dated 10.09.2010 as Annexure R-1, photocopy of calculation sheet as Annexure R-2 and R-3, photocopy of letter dated 03.09.2010 as Annexure R-4, photocopy of letter dated 30.08.2010 as Annexure R-5, photocopy of receipt of loan and other documents as Annexure R-6 to R-11 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.  

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is not disputed that son of the complainant Dinesh Chauhan obtained a study loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the OPs Bank in the year 2005 and repaid entire amount in June, 2010.                       

8.                     The only grievance of the complainant is that OP Bank has wrongly and illegally, against the rules and guidelines of the RBI, has charged the excess rate of interest i.e. the OP bank has charged excess rate of interest @ .50% i.e. charged @ 12. % instead of 11.50% from 06.11.2008 to 17.01.2009 and further charged interest @ 12% instead of 10.75 with effect from 17.01.2009 to 01.07.2009 and 12 % instead of 10.25% from 01.07.2009 to till clearance of the loan and in this way, the OP Bank has charged the excess amount of Rs.38959/- on account of difference in the interest for which the complainant is entitled to get refund from the OPs Bank.          

9.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs Bank has stated that complainant paid interest regularly only till 11.07.2006 and thereafter he committed default and subsequently he gave a written letter that he cannot pay interest  regularly and so he do not want to avail the facility of rebate of 1% towards interest.  Ld. Counsel for the op Bank argued that during the defaulting period penal interest total to the tune of Rs.524/- in all was charged on different dates.  The amount of Rs.38959/- calculated by the complainant on the account of charged in excess is totally wrong and incorrect. Further learned counsel for the OPs argued that an amount of Rs.5375/- had already  been refunded to the complainant for the period 20.05.2005 to 09.10.2007 as the complainant made request to the bank to give rebate @ 1% and draw our attention towards the letter dated 10.09.2010 (Annexure R-1). Ld. Counsel for the op Bank lastly, argued that OP bank has charged the interest as per RBI/head office and matter involved in this complaint is relating to interest and elaborate evidence is required to decide such type of cases and the same cannot be decided in summary way, for which Civil court is the best platform and requested for dismissal of the complain as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Bank. Ld. Counsel for the op Bank refereed the case law.

10.                   After hearing counsel for OPs, we are of the considered view that this complaint cannot be decided in a summarily manner because it involved complicated and complex questions of facts which require elaborating evidence in the present complaint. The grievances of the complainant is that the OP Bank has charged the higher rate of interest by 1.5%, 1% and .50% on the study loan granted to the complainant in the year 2005 and till the repayment of entire loan amount in the month of June, 2010. From  the date of disbursement of the loan in the year 2005 till repayment of entire loan in June, 2010, there are number less entries in the loan account which cannot be scrutinized in a summary manner. To decide such type of cases Civil Court is the best platform. The same view has been held in case titled as “Omega Packing Private Limited Vs. Central Bank of India 1995(1) CPJ, 1995(1) CLT Page 345 (NC)” wherein it has been held that “charging of excess interest-numerous transaction to be examined- examination of numerous transaction involved- impossible for the commission to scrutinize and take evidence regarding charge of excess interest- complainant to seek redress in a suit.”

                        Further, in another case law CLT 2001(1) Page 193 (NC), it has been held that “Banking Services- complicated questions of facts raised- it will take elaborate argument on the facts and law and possible evidence-prayer for interim injunction- restraining the bank from debiting the complainant’s account on account of bank charges- held not a proper case to be heard and decided by the commission-Civil Court is the best platform.

                        In another case titled as “Jay Pee Brothers Medical Private Limited Vs. Bank of India 1995(1) CLT Page 96, (NC), it has been held that “Bank- before the consumer Forum can proceed with the adjudication  of the question whether deficiency in service has been made out, there has to be contract or arrangement for rendering service for consideration-only thereafter, the question of deficiency in service with reference to that contract can arise existence of the contract is wholly disputed by the respondent and me issue cannot be decided without elaborate trial and determination of complicated question which cannot be satisfactorily done in the time bound proceedings under the CP Act- Decline to adjudicate on the merits of this complaint and relegate the complaint to pursue the ordinary remedy by way of Civil Suit.”

11.                   Further, the loan was sanctioned in the year 2005 and the complainant repaid the entire loan amount in the year June, 2010 but the present complaint has been filed in the month of January, 2014, even the previous complaint bearing no. CC No.194 of 2011 was also filed on 09-03-2011 i.e. after closing the loan account in the month of June 2010, So on this account also the present complaint is time barred.

12.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above and after going through the case law referred above, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed with no as to cost. However, complainant is at liberty to redress his grievances before the Civil Court, if so advised. The complainant would be entitled to get the benefit of time spent before this Forum under the provision of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act. Original documents be returned if any after retaining the photocopies of the same. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 16.06.2017.           

                                                                   (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                    PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                   YAMUNANAGAR AT JAGADHRI

 

 

 

      (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)              (S.C.SHARMA)

       MEMBER                                              MEMBER