BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSURU.

Consumer Complaint (C.C.)No. 1119/2016

Complaint filed on 11.02.2016

Date of Judgement.24.03.2016

PRESENT                                : 1. Shri Ramachandra  M.S.,  B.A., LL.B.,

                                                           PRESIDENT

                                       2. Shri  Thammanna,Y.S., B.Sc., LL.B., 

                                             MEMBER

Complainant/s               :                 1. Smt. Shashikala R.T.,

W/o Melagiri Gowda,

LIG-92, 4^th cross, 2^nd stage, Gangothri

Layout, Mysuru-570009.

(Sri K.Eshwar Bhar.,  Advocate)

V/s

Opponent        /s                     :                    M/s Canara Bank,

           Nanjumalige Branch,

Mysuru-570008.

Rep. By its Branch Manager.

(Sri H.C.Prakash.,  Advocate)

SHRI RAMACHANDRA . M.S.,

 PRESIDENT

JUDGEMENT

The complainant filed by the complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party seeking for the relief of refund of interest amount and other relief as prayed in the complaint.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant has borrowed housing loan of  Rs. 6,50,000/- on 30.08.2005 loan Account 3825 at the rate of 8% floating the EMI 6200 for 180 months. Complainant is regular in EMI payment the opposite party has collected excess rate of interest on the said loan. The opposite party has collected inspection charges illegally, they have also collected insurance premium amount of Rs. 1750/- without the permission and knowledge of complainant.

3. On these count the complainant alleged that opposite party has committed deficiency in service and prays for the refund of excess interest amounts and other relief as claimed in the complainant.

4. The notice to the opposite party duly served and represented by counsel filed version. In the statement it is contended that the opposite party has denied that they have charged excess interest on the said loan amount. The interest which was charged by them is only in   accordance with terms and conditions of loan agreement entered between complaint.

5. Further the opposite party also denied that the inspection charges was debited as per the conditions of bank. It was also agreed by complainant at the time of sanction of loan.

6. Further the opposite party has insured housing loan as security with united insurance company limited taking insurance does not need any consent , it is only done in order to safeguard  the loan amount in the event of any un towards incident in the future opposite party has denied all other allegation and prays for the dismissal of complainant.

7. Both parties have filed the examination in chief by way of affidavit filed documents in supported of their contention.

8. Heard arguments of both parties .

9. The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party by collecting excess rate of interest and other charges and thereby proves that he is entitle for the relief sought?

2. What order?

10. Our answer to the above points is as follows;

1. Point No.1: In the affirmative.

2. Point No.2: As per final order for the following;

REASONS

11. Point No.1:- It is an undisputed fact that the complainant has borrowed housing loan of Rs. 6,50,000/- on 30.08.2005 at the rate of interest 8% (floating)  the EMI  is fixed 6,200/- for 180 months complaint is regular in EMI payment. These facts also admitted by the opposite party and there is no dispute in respect of the same by either of the party.

12. Further the allegation of complainant is that the opposite party has charged excess rate of interest instead of agreed interest (8%) at the time of sanction of loan by way of this opposite party has collected excess amount which is nothing but a deficiency in service on his part. The opposite party in reply to the allegation has contended that it is true that at the time of sanction of loan the rate of interest was agreed at  8%(floating) at the same time it was agreed by complainant that the change of rate of interest as per the loan agreement entered by him at page 2 para 6 there is a clause  “that the interest payable by the borrower shall be subject to charge in the interest rates made by the  bank from time to time pursuant to charges in PtLR. The borrower hereby agrees the she is not entitled to any reduction in the rate of interest agreed by him” the complainant has entered loan agreement with opposite party with certain condition which is binding on her. Further she cannot deny the conditions and contend that the opposite party charged excess interest.  Here it is a clear violation of conditions of agreement and opposite party also produced the circular of their bank, regarding change rate of interest from time to time, form these documents. It is very clearly established that at the time of aviling home loan the complainant has agreed for all condition which were laid down  in the loan agreement and after the completion repayment complainant  alleged that the opposite party has collected excess interest. These double standard attitude of complainant shows that the complainant has not approached this fora with clean hands and  an important point that merits  for our consideration is at the beginning the rate of inters is fixed at 8% floating. It is subject to any changes in future from these facts we are of the view that rate of interest charged by opposite party is in accordance with the guide line and agreements, circular of the opposite party we are of opinion that opposite party has acted in accordance with their guidelines and they have not charged excess interest as alleged by the complainant. for which opposite party is not liable  to refund the excess interest amount to the complaint.

13. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party has alleged transferred amount of Rs. 16,956/- for which the complainant has produced cogent and convincing documents in order to establish the same by perusing  the same we are of opinion that there is a illegal transfer of amounts of 16,956/- from her account. These facts is not rebutted by the opposite party. By way of cogent and convincing documents in that event the opposite party is liable to refund the same.

14. Further the complainant alleged that the opposite party has insured the housing loan which was borrower. Further states that policy is taken after the lapse of one year  from the date of availing loan and the premium of amount of Rs. 1,750/- is charged from her account here the act of taking insurance policy is well within the interest  of the complainant as well as the security of bank. When this policy is obtained to safegurd the loan of complainant. we are of the opinion that act cannot be termed as illegal for which complainant is not entitle for the refund of insurance premium amount at the same time opposite party is not liable to refund the same.

15. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party  has collected visiting charges of totally Rs. 6,904/- towards the visiting / inspection charges of construction of house belongs to complainant. complainant has relied on one manual/circular of opposite party  bank wherein it reads in para 15.25.5 house property should be inspected once in a year. But this may be lived where the repayment is regular as per sanction terms, in view of this guideline by way of manual instructions the opposite party is estopped from levying inspection charges here the complainant has satisfied the above guide line of opposite party bank. That she is regular in payment loan EMI instalments it is also evident, that there is not even a single default of EMI from the complainant till the repayment of housing loan as per the statement of inspection charges list of complainant the opposite party has levied Rs. 110, 1981, 1501 ,210, 281, 22, 276, 281, 168, 562,494,112,169,210,14,237,276,these are the different rates of inspection charges charged by opposite party bank when it is perused opposite party charges un reasonable visiting charges  and there is no uniformity of inspection charges. Another important point is that from 8,02,07,26-02-07 there is two inspection visits by opposite party and also charged for the same. Here opposite party has failed to disprove the contention of complainant by way of any cogent and convincing evidence. From the above discussion and the act of opposite party the guide line of manual of Bank we are opinion that the collection of inspection charges of Rs. 6,904/-   by the opposite party bank is illegal and it is nothing but violation of their own guide lines norms for which the opposite party is liable to refund the same to the complainant.

18. For the above reasons by looking at the facts and documents produced by complainant, has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt and also proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

19. According this forum we answered Point no.1 in the partly affirmative and pass the following:

20. Point no.2:- From the above discussion we here by proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby  allowed in part.
2. The opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 16,956/-  and also Rs. 6,904/- to the complainant within 30 days of this order with interest at the rate of  18% p.a. from the date 04.12.2015 to till payment is made.
3. The opposite party is directed to pay of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards the cost of proceeding to the complainant within 30 days of this order.
4. In default to comply, the opposite party shall pay interest at the rate of 15%  p.a. on the said amount of Rs. 10,000/-from the date of  filing complaint to till payment.
5. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party shall

    undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of

    the CP Act, 1986.

6. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules

(Dictated to the stenographer transcribed , typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on the 24^th  March 2017)  

Shri Thammanna Y.S.,                                 Shri Ramachandra M.S.,    

          Member.                                                          President.                                                                 

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

Evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of complainant:

CW-1           :         Smt. SHASHIKALA R.T                    

List of Documents on behalf of complainant:

1        :         Loan sanction letter

2        :         Insurance letter   

3        :         Copy of legal notice

4        :         Reply letter

5        :         Re-joinder notice and manual instruction of canara bank

6        :         Application letter dated 08.11.2015

7        :         Statement of Account pertaining to loan account

8        :         Photo copy of insurance policy

9        :         Interest statement prepared by complainant.

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF OP.

Evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OP:

RW-1           :         DAYANANDA

List of Documents on behalf of Op.:

1        :         Circler  Account No. 3825 of Canara bank

2        :         Loan Agreement copy

Shri Thammanna Y.S.,                                 Shri Ramachandra M.S.,    

       Member.                                                               President.