Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/15/1956

C.Venkateswara Reddy, S/o. Mr. Subbi Reddy, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank ltd, & Others - Opp.Party(s)

03 Sep 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 05.12.2015

                                                      Disposed on: 03.09.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.1956/2015

DATED THIS THE 03^rd SEPTEMBER OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

C.Venkateswara Reddy,

S/o Mr.Subbi Reddy,

Aged about 32 years,

R/at no.43/165,

23^rd cross, Maruthi Nagar, Venkatala, Yelahanka, Bengaluru-64.

 

By Advocates

M/s.RUIA & Associates     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

1. Kotak Mahindra Bank ltd.,

No.27 BKC, C27, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,

Bandra East,

Mumbai-400051.

 

2. The Managing Director

Kotak Mahindra Bank ltd.,

No.27 BKC, C27,

G Block, Bandra Kurla

Complex, Bandra East,

Mumbai-400051.

 

3. The National Operation

Head-Retail Assets

Kotak Mahindra Bank ltd.,

No.27 BKC, C27,

G Block, Bandra Kurla

Complex, Bandra East,

Mumbai-400051.

 

4. The Branch Head,

Kotak Mahindra Bank ltd., No.59, Shree Complex,

BHSC T-Block,

Banashankari 3^rd stage, Bengaluru-85.

 

By Advocates

M/s.The Firm Advocates

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party no.1 to 4 (herein after referred as Op.no.1 to 4 or Ops) seeking issuance of direction not to recall the sanction loan; to adhere to 48 months EMI tenure for loan payment as agreed in the loan agreement; to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment; to pay legal charges of Rs.15,000/- and to grant such other reliefs deem fit for which the Complainant is entitled to.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that, he applied for a personal loan of Rs.5,52,500/- and the Op.no.1 bank sanctioned the same on 23.05.15; and the tenure of repayment agreed between the Complainant and Op.no.1 was 48 months; and the Complainant had to pay an EMI of Rs.14,332/- per month. In this context, loan agreement has been executed on terms & conditions. Accordingly he had paid first EMI on 10.07.15. The Complainant further submits that, he has surprised to receive the communication on 18.07.15, from the Op and in the said communication dtd.04.07.15, the Op arbitrarily increased the loan tenure from 48 months to 60 months and the monthly EMI remained Rs.14,332/-. In this context, he approached Op.no.4 but there was no explanation by him. Hence, he issued legal notice through his counsel to the Managing Director, National Operations Head and the Branch head of the Op banks. But the said notice remained un-replied. The very acts of the Ops are totally illegal and that they have indulged unfair trade practice and are guilty of deficiency of service. Hence prays to allow the complaint.

 

3. On receipt of the notice, Ops did appear and filed version, stating that, admitting that they have agreed to sanction the loan to the Complainant. Further stated that, upon filing the application by the Complainant, Op bank sanctioned personal loan of Rs.5,52,500/- on 23.05.15. The tenure of re-payment agreed between the Complainant and Op is not 48 months, but it was 60 months commencing from 10.07.15 to till 10.06.20 and the Complainant had to pay EMI of Rs.14,332/- for a period of 60 months. The rest of the allegations have been denied by the Op. Further submits that, re-payment by way of 60 months tenure is concerned, it has been already informed to the Complainant. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.

         

          4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents as Ex-A1 to A7. The Authorized Signatory of Ops filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents as Ex-B1 to B5. Complainant filed written arguments. We have gone through the available materials on record. Heard.

  

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether is there any deficiency of service on the part of Ops, if so, whether the Complainant entitled for the relief sought for ?  
2. What order ?

                   

           

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Negative.  

Point no.2: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1:  We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version filed by the Ops. The Complainant has placed reliance on the contents of Ex-A1 which are the loan paper documents, wherein the ‘amount financed is shown as Rs.5,52,500/- and at inkpage no.9 tenure (months) is shown as 60 months. So this document goes against the claim of the Complainant. Further in Ex-A2 which is email correspondence, wherein Complainant informed to the Op bank in respect of ‘increase in personal loan interest rate and tenure after sanction of loan from 48 months to 60 months’. In response to it Ops have taken specific contention stating that, in loan sanction letter dtd.23.05.15 marked as Ex-B2, wherein it is mentioned that, “terms & conditions of sanction, tenure of repayment of the loan is 60 months, monthly instalment amount is Rs.14,332/-.” The said letter is acknowledged by the Complainant by subscribing his signature. Further in Ex-B4 which is the agreement schedule, wherein the sanctioned loan amount is Rs.5,52,500/- and tenure of loan is 60 months, initial payment received is Rs.12,416/-. To this also Complainant has subscribed his signature and admitted the same. It appears that, after the initial negotiation of the sanction of loan, it might have agreed for the tenure of 48 months and the monthly EMI is of Rs.14,332/-. But in view of increasing in the interest rate as per RBI guidelines, tenure of the EMI has been increased. Hence, Complainant has to pay EMI for the tenure of 60 months. When the Complainant has subscribed his signature knowing the contents of the terms & conditions marked as Ex-B2, to be paid the said loan amount by way of EMI of Rs.14,332/- for the tenure of 60 months, under such circumstances, he estopped to say against Ex-B2, Ex-B4, under Sec.114 of Indian Evidence Act and also in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) in the case of Laxmi Engineering works vs. PSG Industrial Institute. Hence, we come to the conclusion that, complaint filed by the Complainant is devoid of any merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 in the negative.

 

        8. Point no.2: In the result, we passed the following:

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed devoid of any merits.

 

          2. Looking to the circumstances of the case, we direct both the parties to bear their own cost.   

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 03^rd September 2018).

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Sri.C.Venkateswara Reddy, who being the complainant was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex-A1	Loan papers
Ex-A2	Email communication
Ex-A3	Letter of Complainant dtd.05.08.15
Ex-A4	Postal acknowledgement
Ex-A5	Legal notice dtd.14.09.15
Ex-A6 & A7	Original Postal receipt and postal acknowledgement

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

Sri.Krishna M Kulkarni, who being the Authorized Signatory of Ops was examined.

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party/s

Ex-B1	Loan application
Ex-B2	Loan sanction letter
Ex-B3	Loan agreement
Ex-B4	Agreement schedule
Ex-B5	Cash flow details

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT