24.04.2015
MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER.
The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.02.2014 passed by Ld. District Forum, Kolikata, Unit – II in complaint case being No. 215 of 2012 which is as follows :-
“That the case be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) against the O.Ps.
OP Bank is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) to the complainant for harassing and causing mental pain to the complainant and for adopting unfair trade practice.
OP bank is hereby directed not to deduct any amount of interest in respect of the present loan of the complainant at the rate of 11.25% p.a. and if any such amount is deducted that shall be deleted from the loan account.
But consider the present total dispute we are directing the complainant either to write a letter to the bank for closing the entire loan account on receipt of the balance loan amount @ 7.75% interest up to date. in the regard complainant shall have to deposit the entire balance loan amount as it would be found as on the date of her application and bank shall have to accept the said amount with interest @ 7.75% and upto close loan account by issuing NOC and handing over all documents in respect of the said loan agreement in favour of the complainant and it must be completed within two months by the parties and the OP bank shall not charge any further interest above @ 7.75% p.a. with such closure and no interest shall be assessed @ 11.25% for any period and if it is assessed it shall be deducted from the balanced loan amount. OP shall have to comply this on the basis of application of the complainant and complainant may accept this option and close down the same and if complainant is unwilling to accept the option in that case it is the option of the complainant what process they shall have to adopt in respect of the loan account. So, parties are directed to comply this order very strictly.
Within two months from the of this order parties shall have to report what is the maturity of the spirit of this order but for adopting the unfair trade practice and unscrupulous service to the consumer OP Bank is imposed Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) as punitive damages and it is imposed to check the unfair trade practice by the bank administration and same shall be deposited to the present Forum in the account of President, D.C.D.R.F., Kolkata, Unit – II.
OP Bank authority is hereby directed to comply the order in respect of payment of cost, compensation to the complainant deposit of punitive damages to this Forum within one month failing which for each days delay penal interest @ Rs.300/- shall be assessed over the same which shall be paid by the OP and further penal action u/s.27 of the C.P. Act, started against them for which further penalty shall be imposed”.
Being aggrieved by the impugned order the O.P. – Branch Manager of State Bank of India has preferred the instant appeal on grounds, inter alia, that the Ld. District Forum failed to appreciate that the Complainant was well aware in respect of change of rate of interest and the Bank is the only authority to decide the rate of interest.
The case of the Complainant (Respondent herein) in brief, is that on 23.11.2005 the Complainant has applied for a Housing Loan to the O.P. – bank (Appellant herein) in order to purchase a flat being No. 4E, at 4th floor of a building situated at 135A, S. P. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700026 and the O.P. sanctioned an amount of Rs.21,96,000/- towards the loan with an interest @ 7.75% p.a. on daily reducing balance at monthly rests subject to rescheduling of the interest at the end of every three years. It was also mentioned under the terms that if the borrower was not agreeable with the reset interest rate he should request SBI within 15 days of receipt of notice issued by the Bank intimating the change of interest rate so that the borrower might liquidate the loan by repaying the loan amount with interest. The Complainant has further stated that on 31.05.2011 the O.P. Bank had reset the rate of interest as 11.25% p.a. w.e.f. 23.12.2008 and debited an amount of Rs.1,35,151/- from the loan account of the Complainant as interest arrears. Stating these facts the Complainant filed the petition of complaint praying for direction upon the O.P. that considering the gross deficiency in service and lack of any serious efforts by the Bank to redress the grievance by making compensation for mental agony and financial distress imposed on the Complainant and to reverse the wrong debit dated 31.05.2011 as well as to restore interest @ 7.75% per annum till 23.12.2014.
The O.P. contested the case and filed W. V. contending, inter alia, that the O.P. – Bank had the sole authority to reset the rate of interest. The O.P. further stated that as per terms of the sanction letter the interest @ 7.75% was valid from 09.12.2005 to 09.12.2008 the Bank reset the rate of interest on 09.02.2011 w.e.f. 10.12.2008 and Rs.1,35,151/- had been debited towards arrears of interest. According to the O.P. there is no deficiency in service of the part of the O.P. and, therefore, the case shall be dismissed.
In course of hearing of the appeal Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the Respondent was very much aware that the then existing rate of interest (i.e. @ 7.75% p.a.) was valid upto 09.12.2008. So subsequently the rate of interest was revised and an arrear amount was deducted from the loan.
In support of his contention Ld. Advocate for the Appellant filed following decisions:-
(1) 2012 (4) CPR 450 (NC) – M/s. Amitara Industries Ltd. – vs. – State Bank of India.
(2) 2012 (4) CPR 454 (NC) – S. Parameshwar – vs. – Chief Post Master.
(3) 2013 (3) CPR 512 (NC) – Renu Sharma – vs. – State Bank of Patiala, MID CORPORATE BRANCH.
(4) 2014 (3) CPR 142 (NC) – Subhash Chander Mahajan & Anr. – vs. – Parsvnath Developers Ltd. Through its Managing Director.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has submitted that as per terms of the sanction letter the O.P. – Bank was bound to intimate the change of rate of interest before the same coming into effect.
Both parties have filed BNA.
Having heard the submissions and on perusal of record it appears that the moot point is whether the Bank authority rescheduled the rate of interest as per terms of the allotment letter in respect of the loan disbursed. In the allotment letter dated 09.12.2005 the Bank authority clearly mentioned “ thenceforth the rate of interest varied…….as applicable to the Loan. SBI shall be the sole judge to determine whether such conditions exist or not. If the Borrower is not agreeable to the revised interest rates so fixed, the Borrower shall request SBI, within 15 days of receipt of the notice intimating change in interest rates from SBI, to terminate the loan and shall repay the loan and any other amount due to SBI in full and final settlement in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement relating to prepayment.” Therefore, it is evident therefrom that the Borrower must be served with the notice regarding proposed change in rate of interest and, if he does not agree with the same, he may avail the opportunity to liquidate the loan by paying outstanding amount. In the instant case no prior notice intimating proposed change in interest has been served upon the Respondent and thus she has got no opportunity to liquidate the loan. This infringement of right of the Respondent in violation of the terms of the contract is an example of deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant.
In such view of the matter, we are of opinion that the Ld. District Forum rightly passed the impugn order.
In the result, the Appeal fails.
Hence
ORDERED,
that the instant appeal is dismissed on contest without cost. The impugned Judgment of the Ld. District Forum is affirmed.
