THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C. 528/2014
Dated this the 18th day of July 2018.
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. Hon’ble : President)
Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A : Member
Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB : Member
ORDER
Present: Smt.Rose Jose, Hon’ble President:
This petition is filed by the petitioner, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986 for an order directing the opposite party not to charge any higher rate of interest or penal interest than the agreed rate of 4% from him towards the gold loan amounts, availed from the opposite party bank.
His case is that, he had availed two gold loans from the opposite party Bank for Rs.2,00,000/- on 27.09.2012 and Rs.99,000/- on 28.09.2012 as gold loan accounts Nos.22017 & 22018 respectively. At the time of availing the loans the opposite party told that, the rate of interest is 4% per annum. He had paid one installment towards interest on the next month itself. It is stated that, at the time of paying the 1st installment of interest, the staff of the opposite party bank told him that he need not pay the interest in every month and that they inform him the expiry of the loan period and then only he need to pay the amount with interest. Believing these words he has not paid any interest towards the loan amounts further. Thereafter no intimation was received from the bank as stated by the staff.
While so, in the month of July 2014, he received two letters from the opposite party bank dtd.21.07.2014, where in it is stated that, the interest towards the loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is Rs.26,794/- and towards the loan amount of Rs.99,000/- the interest is Rs.13,296/- and the total amount payable is shown as Rs.2,26,794/- and Rs.1,12,296/- respectively. When he enquired at the bank, he came to know that the opposite party had increased the interest rate from 4% to 13% per annum. So he had given a letter to the opposite party on 22.07.2014 raising objection against the arbitrary increase in the interest rate and to that letter the opposite party replied on 27.07.2014 stating that the rate of interest was 9% at the time of sanctioning the loan and since he has not closed the account within the stipulated time of 1 year, he is not eligible for the subsidy of 3% interest rate and at present the interest rate is 11.20% plus penal interest. It is alleged that the said rate is not the agreed rate while taking the loan. More over the opposite party had discouraged the remittance of monthly interests and still now they have not reveal the rate of penal interest to him. The said act of the opposite party is deficiency in service on their part and this caused heavy financial loss, mental pain and other hardships to him. Hence this petitioner seeking reliefs.
The opposite party in their version admitted the sanction of the said gold loan to the petitioner for short term agricultural purpose. It is stated that, the said loans had a tenability of one year from the date of grant. The statement of the petitioner that, the agreed rate of interest at the time of taking the loan was 4% was denied as not true or correct and submitted that the rate was 9% and thus was duly intimated to the petitioner also. It is also admitted that, the petitioner had remitted one installment interest towards the two loan accounts. It is contended that due to the default in repayment of loan amounts within the period of one year, they have sent intimation to the petitioner regarding the overdue payment and the interest. The petitioner was well aware of the interest rate and had agreed to pay the penal interest of 2% in case of default in payments. It can be revealed from the application-cum-letter of pledge executed by the petitioner on the dates of sanction of the loans.
It is further contended that, the petitioner is eligible for the conversional interest of 3% in case of repayment of the loan amounts within the stipulated period of one year. This fact was also intimated to the petitioner at the time of sanctioning the loan. The letter issued by the petitioner was replied stating true and correct facts with request to make repayment of dues. They had made all efforts to explain the status of the loan to the petitioner but even after all their efforts the petitioner has not paid the amounts till date. They have not charged any higher rate of interest for the loan amounts than what was intimated to the petitioner at the time of availing the loan. The rate charged is in terms with the prescribed rules and regulations. So the petitioner is liable to pay the loan amounts with the agreed rate of interest and penal interest to them. All other allegations of the petitioner was denied as false and baseless. There is no deficiency in service on their side as alleged. The petitioner is not entitled to get any of the reliefs sought for in the petition and hence prayed to dismiss the petition with their cost.
Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by the petitioner and Exts.A1 to A5 on the side of the petitioner. Ext.A1 and A2 are the letters dtd.21.07.2014 issued to the petitioner by the opposite party, A3 is the copy of the letter dated 27.07.2014 issued to the opposite party by the petitioner, A4 is the reply to Ext.
A3 letter and Ext.A5 is the copy of the passbook of the petitioner regarding account No.0841101131478. No evidence on the side of the opposite party.
According to the petitioner, the agreed rate of interest for the gold loan amounts while taking the same was only 4%. Though he had paid one installment towards the interest, the staff of the opposite party Bank discouraged him from payment of monthly interest saying that they will intimate the expiry of the loan period and that he has to pay the amount with interest at that time. But as against their words the opposite party without intimating the expiry date had issued Exts. A1 & A2 letters demanding to pay a total amount of Rs.2,26,794/- towards the loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,12,296/- towards the loan amount of Rs.99,000/- respectively. They have charged 13% interest for the amounts as against the agreed rate of 4% at the time of availing the loan and this is deficiency in service on their side. But here the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that the agreed interest rate was 4% as alleged. No bank will sanction any loans without executing a” loan agreement” signed by the customer. In that agreement all the details regarding the loan ie. the period of the loan, mode of payment, rate of interest, penal interest chargable in case of default in payment etc. will be stated clearly. They will also issue a loan ticket in case of gold loans which carries all the details. The petitioner has not produced the loan ticket before the Forum. The petitioner stated that he had remitted one installment of interest towards the loan amounts. So from the amount paid the rate of interest can be easily calculated. If the rate was above 4%, then he can raise objection at that time itself. But the petitioner has not produced the receipt of the said payment also before the Fora so the averment of the petitioner that he was unaware of all these things is not correct or acceptable. He ought to have go to the bark and enquire about the loan status at least once in the year instead of waiting for the intimation from the bank. Ext.A3 is the copy of letter issued by the petitioner to the opposite party bank raising complaint against the charging of 13% interest for the amount taken and requesting to take appropriate action in this regard. Ext.A3 is dated 27.07.2014. The loans were taken on 27.09.2012 and 28.09.2012 respectively. This shows that, the petitioner had contacted the opposite party bank only after the expiry of the loan period of one year. This is nothing but negligence and also default on the side of the petitioner.
At the same time it is the bounden duty and mandatory on the side of the opposite party to intimate the expiry date of the loan period or any changes made in the interest rate within that period to the customer with demand for payment before initiating any action against him. Since the petitioner had denied any kind of intimation from the opposite party in this regard, it is the duty of the opposite party to prove the same with supportive evidence. Though it is stated in their reply letter to the petitioner (Ext.A4) that they had contacted the petitioner on various times over phone and even visiting him at his house by their manager, no evidence was produced before the Fora to substantiate their said contention. They can very well issued a registered notice to the petitioner as evidence. But they have not done so. More over in Ext.A1 & A3 which are the demand notices issued to the petitioner for payment the opposite party has not showed the interest rate or the penal interest charged on the amounts and from which day onwards they are going to charge the penal interest. This is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So we are of the view that, the opposite party is not entitled to charge any higher rate of interest towards the loan amounts of the petitioner than the agreed rate of 9% as stated by them.
So considering the facts stated and evidence on record, this petition is partly allowed and the following order is passed. The opposite parties are ordered to charge only 9% interest towards the loan amount of the petitioner for closing the loan account. Accordingly the petitioner is ordered to close the loan account within 90 days from the date of receipt of this order. If the petitioner is not closing the account within the stipulated time the opposite parties can take steps for the realization of the amount with ordered interest as per their rules. No order as to cost.
Dated this 18th day of July 2018.
Date of filing: 16.10.2014.
SD/- MEMBER SD/- PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1.Letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant dtd.21.07.14.
A2. Letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant dtd.21.07.14.
A3. Copy of the Letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party dtd.27.07.14.
A4. Reply of the letter dtd.22.07.14
A5.Copy of the passbook of the petitioner.
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
Nil
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
