(CIRCUIT BENCH AT VIJAYAWADA)

F.A.No.1860/2007  against C.D.No.220/2006,   Dist. Forum,Prakasam  Dist at Ongole.                

Between:

Gudluru Premavathi, W/o.G.V.Krishna Murthy,

Retd. Telugu Pandit, Formerly worked as

Telugu Pandit  in Z.P.High School, Prakasam Dist.

and presently resident of Muppalla village and post

Ponnalore Mandal , Prakasam District                      … Appellant/

                                                                            Complainant

                  And

1.Andhra Bank  Housing Finance, Guntur,

Subsequently merged in the regular Andhra Bank,

Koretipadu, Guntur, rep. by its

Deputy General Manager, Koretipadu, Guntur. 

2. Andhra Bank, Prakasam Dist., Ongole,

Rep. by its Branch Manager, Main Branch,

Trunk Road, Ongole.                                            … Respondents/

                                                                            Opp.parties   

Counsel for the Appellant       :      Mr.V.Prasad.          

Counsel for the Respondent   :       Mr.K.Sridhar Rao-R1

CORAM:SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER

And

SRI. K.SATYANAND , HON’BLE  MEMBER.

TUESDAY, THE  SIXTH DAY OF APRIL.

TWO THOUSAND TEN.

Oral Order :(Per  Smt. M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

****

Aggrieved by the order  in C.D.No.220/2006  on the file of District Forum, Prakasam Dist. at Ongole, the complainant preferred this appeal. 

 The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant  applied for the  house loan of Rs.3 lakhs from opposite party no.1  in the year 1998  and both the complainant and her husband  furnished their  service and salary particulars including  their date of births  in the loan application undertaking  their certificate of pay  to the effect that  the repayment of EMI amounts would be deducted from their salaries and her husband stood as surety.  After all the required particulars and undertakings  from pay drawing officers, opposite party no.1 sanctioned  house loan of Rs.2,25,000/-  at 15.5%  interest  with direction for repayment in 60 E.M.Is of Rs.2,660/-  per month from the  complainant  and Rs.3000/- per month from her husband who stood as surety in discharging the said  house loan  and  the recovery of the EMIs have to be commenced from 1.7.1998 to 30.5.2003.  On 6.9.2003 the complainant received a letter dt.6.9.2003  disclosing the particulars of loan amount and  rate of E.M.I.  amount  being Rs.5,412/-  and the outstanding balance of the loan amount as Rs.45,408/-.  E.M.I. amount is actually Rs.5,660/-  i.e. Rs.3000/- + 2660/- fixed as E.M.I. by Andhra Bank Housing Finance , Guntur. When the complainant asked for verification  whether the E.M.I. is Rs.5,660/-  or Rs.5,412/-   she was informed that Rs.5,412/-  is correct and hence  excess amount of Rs.22,271.94  was collected from her.   The complainant submits that an amount of Rs.3,48,877/-   was paid by them and opposite party no.2  closed the  account and all the pledged documents were returned to the complainant and opposite party no.2 collected Rs.47,597/-   instead of Rs.45,408/- and the total excess amount collected by both the  opposite parties   is Rs.24,157/-  Even when asked, opposite party no.1 did not furnish   complete copy of the loan ledger  and a legal notice was sent to them on 24.5.2004   and 14.6.2004 requesting  opposite parties 1 and 2   to give all the particulars.  Another legal notice dt.1.7.2005   was also sent   but there was  no reply. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay an  amount of Rs.33,050/-  together with interest,  compensation and costs.

Second opposite party  filed written  version and opposite party no.1 filed a memo adopting the same. 

In the written version the second opposite party stated that the complainant took a house loan on  interest basis and as per the account maintained by this opposite party, the complainant paid the amounts without questioning  at the time of  payment  which terminate the contract between parties.  Opposite party submits that the rate of interest  reduced from 1.10.2003   and accordingly EMI   of the complainant  is also reduced and  E.M.Is are fixed  as per the  rate of interest  and the complainant cannot ask that the  EMIs be reduced from the date of loan  itself. Opposite party submits that   there is no deficiency in service on their  behalf and seek for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A5, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. 

Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal. 

The respondents filed their written arguments. 

It is the case of the complainant that she had taken  housing loan of Rs.2,25,000/-    from the opposite party no.1  with 15.5% interest  with directions for repayment in 60 EMIs of Rs.2,660/-  in her name and  Rs.3000/- in her husband’s name  totaling to Rs.5660/- . The recovery of EMIs  should commence form 1.7.1998 to 30.5.2003.  It is also not in dispute that  she received a letter dt.6.9.2003   wherein her EMI rate was mentioned as Rs.5,412/- instead of Rs.5,660/-.  On verification she was told that Rs.5,412/-   was right.  It is the further case of the complainant that she paid total amount of Rs.3,48,877   details of which  are as follows:

“Paid by the surety:

From 1.6.98 to 31.7.2002 executing one missing

DD. (49 months at Rs.3000 per month)                      1,47,000-00

Paid by the Borrower      

1-6-1998 to 31.3.2003 (58 months at Rs.2660)            1,54,280-00

Thus total amount paid upto  the retirement of

the  Borrower and her surety.                                    3,01,280-00

Subsequently cash paid to O.P.No.2 on 17.12.03

including the missed 50^th D.D.(as stated above)             47,597-00

                                                                            ___________

                                        Grand total                     3,48,877-00

                                                                            ___________”

The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted   that opposite party no.2  collected Rs.47,597  instead of  Rs.45,408/- and both the opposite parties collected an amount of Rs.24,157/-  in excess and  inspite of issuance of legal notice on 24.5.2004  and 14.6.2004   and another notice on 1.7.2005,  the opp. Parties    did not choose to give their ledger copes or  statement of account. 

        In their written arguments the learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties submitted that the first  respondent was merged with the second respondent and the interest was reduced w.e.f. 1.10.2003  and therefore E.M.I. was reduced from 5,660/- to 5,412/-.   The learned counsel for the respondent further  submitted in the written arguments  that after paying the entire  loan  amount without  questioning  the same  and after the contract was terminated the complainant cannot now say that excess amounts were collected.  Ex.A3 clearly states that the rate of interest is on fixed rate basis  only and will come into effect from 1.10.2003  and nowhere it is written that EMIs were fixed  at Rs.5,412/-  at the time of  issuance of loan . Therefore we see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum.

        In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.

                                                                                                                Sd./   MEMBER

                                                                                                                Sd./MEMBER

                                                                                                                Dt.6.4.2010