Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/222/2019

D Arul Hilber John - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Citi Bank Home Loans Rep by Manager - Opp.Party(s)

M/s K Gajendran

14 Jun 2023

ORDER

  Date of Complaint Filed:08.08.2019

  Date of Reservation     :08.06.2023

  Date of Order              :14.06.2023

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                   THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,      : MEMBER II

               

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.222/2019

WEDNESDAY,THE 14^th DAY OF JUNE 2023

 

D. Arul Hilber John,

Old No.73-74, New No.4/362,

St. John’s Street, Ponnurangam Nagar,

Pozhichalur, Chennai – 600 074.                                       .. Complainant.

 

-Vs-

The Manager,

Citi Bank Home Loans,

No.2, Club House Road,

P.O. No.4830,

Chennai – 600 002.                                                        .. Opposite Party.

* * * * *

 

Counsel for the Complainant   : M/s. K. Gajendiran & A. Andharaj

 

Counsel for Opposite Party     : M/s. E. Santhanalakshmi, K. Arun,

                                                    M. Arjun

 

On perusal of records and upon treating the written arguments as oral arguments on endorsement made by the Complainant, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

(i) The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the damages caused to the Complainant by the illegal act of the Opposite Party and also pray the Opposite Party to pay cost of the complaint.

I.  The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

1.     The Complainant submitted that he had availed home loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Opposite Party on 18.06.2005 under Home Loan No. 414735 and the interest payable at 7.75% and the amount has to be paid by monthly instalment at Rs. 4,706/- through ECS and the amount has to be repaid within 180 months.

2.     The Complainant paid an initial payment of Rs.2,91,234/- by cheque No. 907261 dated 22.11.2005 and second instalment Rs.1,75,000/- through cheque No.942406 dated 27.03.2006 and third instalment Rs.25.000/- through cheque No.965484 dated 29.06.2006. The Complainant also paid insurance premium with handling charge Rs.8,766/- and the Opposite Party has given Insurance Policy No.500035005 M/s. Birla Sun Light Insurance Company Ltd. The Complainant also paid handling charges of Rs. 2,755/- by D.D. to the Opposite Party.

3.     The Complainant has been regularly paying the amount by ECS through his bank Indian Bank. The Complainant paid a total sum of Rs. 8,61,196/- as on 22.07 2019 through ECS including a lump sum payment of Rs. 80,000/- (Rs 30,000/- Rs. 50,000/-) as per the statement of account filed herewith.

4.     Surprisingly the Opposite Party gave a letter to the Complainant dated 21.09.2011 stating that the period of payment is changed as 295 months instead of 180 months. The said change of period was without the consent of the Complainant. To the said letter the Complainant given a reply dated 11.12.2011. To the said reply the Opposite Party given another letter stating that the EMI is changed to Rs.5,785/- P.M. instead of Rs.4,706/-. The Opposite Party without the consent of the Complainant arbitrarily made such change. The Opposite Party again gave another letter dated 17.09.2013 stating that the period of repayment is again changed to 300 months from 295 months.

5.     The Opposite Party have refused for pre-closure of my loan inspite of several letters/personal visits made by the Complainant. The Opposite Party in their letter dated 18.01.2012 have stated a false statement that they had sent a self-explanatory pre-closure letter (stated to have mentioned the pre-closure amount and pre-closure procedure) through M/s. Blue Dart Courier and the same was returned to them undelivered as they could not locate the Complainant's address. Therefore, the Complainant submits that the Opposite Party is deliberately denying for pre-closure of the loan and thereby caused huge loss to the complaint by way of unwanted interest payment and also caused mental agony,

6.     In this regard the Complainant given a letter to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on 13.12.2013 T.N.SL.S.A No. 5312/CC/2013 the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority issued a notice the Opposite Party to appear before the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.

7.     The Opposite Party state that orally stating that there is no amount available in Complainant's bank to avail ECS. At that time parties Account money available in account and stated that the Complainant is a defaulter, whereas the Opposite Party deliberately abstained from taking the ECS amount from the Complainant Bank for 7 months and subsequently started taking the ECS amount. The Opposite Party sent a letter dated 24.11.2017 change the interest rate and E-mail dated 06.11.2018 stating that the rate of interest is changed as 8.75% instead of 7%. The Opposite Party declared the Complainant as defaulter and included in the list of defaulter so as the Complainant cannot seek any loan from any bank.

8.     The Opposite Party sent a letter dated 24.04.2019 demanding repayment of the balance amount and threatening to take action against the Complainant, complaint given the reply to the Bank on 30.5.2019. They further stated that they will not take the amount through ECS. On receipt of the said letter, the Complainant sent a cheque for Rs. 32,942/- to the Opposite Party bearing cheque no. 073106 of Central Bank of India. The said letter with cheque was acknowledged by the Opposite Party. However, the Opposite Party has not given credit for the said sum of Rs. 32,942/- still, and furthermore the Opposite Party termed the Complainant as "defaulter". As the Opposite Party has not taken the ECS from the bank, the Complainant sent a sum of Rs. 4,706/- by cheque No. 073137 to the Opposite Party cheque dated 13.06.2019.

9.     The Complainant submits that when he approached the bank to meet the manager to enquire about the above facts, the Opposite Party's subordinate did not allow the Complainant to meet to manager. The Opposite Party sent a letter dated 13.06.2019 stating that the Complainant is a defaulter and the said letter was sent in an envelope cover having the name of M/s. Balasubramini, Veeramalai and Vadivel, Advocates.

10.    The Complainant submits that the Opposite Party is not given any working sheet for the due amount and simply they demand the complaint to pay the dues and they have not stated the exact due amount. The above said Insurance appears to be a forged document and the Insurance Number given by the Opposite Party is also appears to be fake. The Opposite Party at their own accord arbitrarily changed the period of repayment and increased the rate of interest and EMI amount without any details and without Complainant's concurrence. Because of the act of the Opposite Party, the Complainant suffered heavy loss. Furthermore, the Complainant name also is included in "CIBIL" restraining the Complainant from getting any loan from any bank. The Opposite Party with a view to extract more money made such illegal action and caused heavy loss to the Complainant. The Complainant is suffering both mentally and physically. The Complainant offered for one time settlement but the Opposite Party refused for the same. Because of the Opposite Party's arbitrary and unlawful action, the Complainant will be under huge financial loss.

11.    The Complainant submits that because of the arbitrary unlawful acts of the Opposite Party the Complainant suffered severe mental agony due to which the Complainant is unable to attend his day to day work peacefully due to the harassment and mental agony caused by the Opposite Party.

 

II. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:

 

12.    The Opposite Party submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage itself as not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction. The Opposite Party has initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and if the Complainant wishes to challenge the action taken by the Opposite Party it should approach the appropriate Forum i.e. the Debts Recovery Tribunal and at the appropriate stage as is stipulated under the said Act. The Complainant has made allegations pertaining to rate of interest only in an attempt to get the matter within the ambit of the Ld. Forum's jurisdiction. However, the actual cause of action, if at all any, is the initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act by the Opposite Party as a secured lender, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of any court/forum except the Debts Recovery Tribunal. A copy of the Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act sent to the Complainant on April 24, 2019.

13.    The Complainant had availed a home loan for Rs.5,00,000/- bearing loan account number 414735 on June 14, 2005 which was repayable with @7.75% variable rate of interest applicable at the time of sanction of the Loan, from the Opposite Party. The initial tenure sanctioned for the loan was of 180 months and the monthly instalments were of Rs.4,706/- respectively.

14.    That the Loan was taken at a variable interest rate therefore, there was an increase in the rate of interest of the Loan Account Number 414735 from the period of June, 2005 to Apr, 2019. It may be germane to mention that the interest rate being approved for variable rate, the same kept fluctuating at variable rate of interest and at different intervals, thereby, increasing at various instances and finally, the rate of interest on Loan Account Number 414375 in April 2019 is @ 13.3%.

15.    As per Clause 2.2 (a) of the Loan Agreement between the Complainant and the Opposite Party which is reproduced verbatim as below:

"The Borrower shall be charged interest at the rates mentioned in Schedule L In case of Variable Interest R Rate Loans, the interest charged will be linked to the applicable Citibank Mortgage Prime Rate as mentioned in Schedule I. In Citibank such case, the applicable Mortgage Prime Rate shall be notified to the Borrower by the Bank only if the rate of interest is varied by the Bank within Thirty (30) days from the first day of each calendar financial quarter or of each calendar financial half year or of each financial calendar year, as the case may be, and such rate notified by the Bank shall be binding on the Borrower".

16.    That the rate of interest applicable to the loan had been revised from time to time and the information regarding the loan repricing has also been intimated to the Complainant through several intimation letters timely. That post October 2005, the Opposite Party had increased the rate of interest on such mentioned Loan and the Complainant had continued to pay the same Equated Monthly Installments (EMI) all through. It is pertinent to mention that when there is a change in the rate of interest, the first adjustment is made to the tenor of the loan, if the same does not fit the credit acceptance parameters, a change will be made to the EMI amount. Accordingly, the Complainant's loan tenure was extended from 180 months to 275 months. While there was revision of rate of interest with the EMI, the Opposite Party observed an irregular payment pattern as result of no/late payment of monthly EMI.

17.    The customer is provided an option to switch the interest rate benchmark from Citibank Mortgage Prime Rate ("CMPR") to base rate, this is informed to all the Opposite Party's customers vide its online platform CMPR. That the Complainant was sent various repricing letters intimating the increase in the rate of interest of the loan from time to time. The Opposite Party performs its obligation of communicating the increase and decrease in rate of interest to its modes customers through various modes. In the present case also the Opposite Party has intimated the Respondent about the change of rate of interest through the interest and various modes. Through principal certificate for the period April 2005 to March 2019. The Complainant was always aware of the variable rate of interest and took tax benefit of the interest and principal amount paid to the Opposite Party but is yet disputing having knowledge of the variable nature of the same. It is pertinent to mention here that having known about the fluctuation in the rate of interest, the Complainant never raised any concern within the limitation period.

18.    The yearly rendition statements which was sent to the Complainant. It is pertinent to mention that the statement of account sent to the borrowers also mention the change in the rate of interest and the same is sent yearly. The repricing letters which was sent to the Complainant informing him about the change in rate of interest. Complainant was put to notice, time and again with regard to the change in the rate of interest. Twenty Two (22) such letters were sent by the Opposite Party to the Complainant. The Complainant was duly informed about the revised rate of interest. The Complainant was further informed that the monthly instalment amount was not being revised and instead the tenure of the loan will get extended appropriately. Opposite Party had also intimated the Complainant through the aforesaid letters that if the Complainant wished to rework his instalment plan, she could contact the Opposite Party. However, the Complainant did not contact the Opposite Party with any such request. The Complainant is also not disputing the non- receipt of repricing letter communications. The Opposite Party bank maintains a Notepad in its system with respect to every customer which carries all the updates regarding the loan account including interactions with customer. These Notepads bear every detail of the customer's loan account and real time updates are made by the Bank. However, as the Opposite Party was not in receipt of the Complainant's request for switching over to base rate, the loan continued to be linked to CMPR. The letters further advised the Complainant, that in case, he wishes to re-work the EMI (in other words, increase in the EMI amount), he should contact the Opposite Party at the numbers mentioned in such letters. The Complainant did not contact the Opposite Party and thus, his Loan tenure got extended.

19.    Accordingly, the rate of interest applicable to the loan had been revised from time to time and the information regarding the loan repricing has also been intimated to the customer through intimation letter time to time. Furthermore, the Complainant should be put to strict proof to evidence that he never received any communication from the Opposite Party including letters, statement of loan account, certificate of principal and interest paid for availing tax benefits throughout the loan tenure.

20.    As and when, there is a change in the rate of interest, the first adjustment is made to the tenor of the loan, if the same does not fit the Opposite Party's credit acceptance parameters, a change will be made to the EMI amount. In this case, the tenure of the loan was increased due to change in ROI which in turn was necessitated by change in CMPR The Opposite Party would like to state that that penal interest shall be applicable upon non receipt of payment towards the complete EMI on or before the end of the corresponding month. Penal interest is levied in case of non-payment of his monthly EMI repayment. It is charged above at the rate of 2% p.a. above the prevailing Interest Rate on the loan outstanding for the default period.

21.    Through various communications and meetings, the Opposite Party had requested the Complainant to make the required payment timely to keep his credit in good standing and avoid levy of any financial charges A review of the Opposite Party's records confirm that the payment pattern on the loan account was not regular and there were multiple instances of ECS returns resulting in non / late payment of the monthly EML. Accordingly, penal interest and bounce charges were levied to the loan account. The loan ECS was last cleared in September 2018. Post September 2018, there were consecutive ECS bounces with reason "ECS Mandate not received" by the Complainant's bank; hence the Opposite Party moved the loan to non- presentable base from December 2018 onwards. Post that the Opposite Party was in receipt of only 4 cheque payments for Rs.4,706/- each for the months- February 2019, June 2019, July 2019 and September 2019.

22.    Immediately after the disbursement of the loan in June 2005, the Opposite Party had revised the rate of interest during the period June 2005 to April 2019 from 7.75% to 13.3%, however, the Complainant continued to pay the initial EMI of Rs-4706 all through. Out of the EMI received, the interest charged for the previous month is first adjusted and the balance is applied towards the principal. In this case, we see that the EMI amount was largely sufficient to cover the interest amount of the loan as the due to upward rate of revision of interest and no change in the EMI amount, hence his loan tenure got extended which has resulted in the present dues of Rs. 338211.30 on the loan account as on 13.09.2019.

23.    That the Complainant has completely failed to take into account the reprising letters mentioning the increased rate of from interest time to time and extension of the Loan tenor and miscalculated the EMIs every month unilaterally.

24.    That the Complainant had requested for the preclosure of the loan in December 2011 and accordingly, the preclosure letter was sent to the Complainant vide bluedart courier airway bill number 40329841160, which was returned undelivered on 29.12.2011. Accordingly, the request was cancelled by the Opposite Party in February 2012. Furthermore, the Opposite Party did not receive any further request from the Complainant for preclosure nor any payment towards such loan preclosure amount. It is pertinent to mention that the Opposite Party, on receipt of the notice from the Tamil Nadu State Legal Service in 2013 had duly attended the hearing and informed the concerned Authority of the Complainant's loan status.

25.    The instant complaint is not maintainable against Opposite Party as nowhere in the complaint has the Complainant demonstrated, alleged and/or established any fact which points out any act of deficiency in service by the Opposite Party.

26.    It is well settled that deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality. nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. It is also well settled now that the borrowers cannot challenge the rate of interest   charged by the Banks which was agreed upon by the borrowers by executing an agreement.

27.    The Opposite Party had clearly performed all its duties with due diligence. No cause of action arose in favor of the Complaisant to prefer the instant complaint against the Opposite Party and therefore, in the absence of any cause of action against the Opposite Party, the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed qua the Opposite Party forthwith, and this Hon'ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the present complaint.

28.    That the Complainant has dejectedly failed to establish any cogent and valid grounds based on which the present complaint could be admitted against the Opposite Party. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. In fact, nowhere in the complaint has the Complainant alleged any grievance against the Opposite Party. That the Complainant has falsely and frivolously accused the Opposite Party of negligence and unfair trade practice. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party will continue to pursue the legal recourses available to it under the SARFAESI Act or any other prevalent law for recovery of dues and/or enforcement of security.

29.    Without prejudice to the aforesaid preliminary objections, the Opposite Party denies all the allegations contained in the complaint, except those, which are specifically admitted hereinafter in this written statement, and nothing stated in the complaint should be deemed to be admitted merely because the same is not specifically traversed. It is also submitted that, anything stated in the complaint contrary to and/or inconsistent with what is stated in the present written statement be deemed to be expressly denied.

30.    It is clarified that amount mentioned by the Complainant is not the amount paid by him but the amount disbursed by the Opposite Party. The policy number 500035 stated by the Complainant is a policy availed by the Complainant underwritten by Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited for Insurance coverage for Rs.1,00,000/-. Opposite Party wish to state that, the Insurance products are obligations only of the insurance company. They are not bank deposits or obligations of or guaranteed by the Bank or any of its affiliates. All claims under the policy are solely decided upon by the insurance company. Bank at no point of time assures or represents anything about the insurance, the quality of claims processing and cannot be made responsible for claims, recovery of claims, or for processing of or clearing of claims, in any manner whatsoever. This is also published in the Opposite Party Bank's website.

31.    It is denied that the Complainant has been regularly paying the amount through his Indian Bank. On the contrary, it is reiterated that immediately after the disbursement of the Loan in June 2005, the Opposite Party had increased the ROI from 7.75 % to 825% with effect from October 2005 as per the variable interest rate agreed by the Complainant and the complaisant continued to pay the same EMI all through antil September 2018. New, his loan tenure got extended owing to the increase in the rate but the Complainant stopped paying since October, 2018 which has resulted in the present dues of Rs. 3,38,211.30 in the Loan Account no. 414735 respectively as on 13.09.2519. The total amount of payment received as on 23.08.2019 is Rs.8,18,842/- including the payment towards penal charges and ECS returns in the loan account.

32.    The Opposite Party submitted that, basis the Complainant's request for the pre-closure of the loan in December, 2011, had issued and dispatched the pre-closure letter via bluedart courier airwaybill no. 40329841160 which was returned undelivered on December 29,2911. It is submitted that accordingly, the request was canceled in February, 2012 and also the Opposite Party did not receive any payments towards the said loan pre-closure amount. It is, thus, denied that they have deliberately rejected the request for pre-closure of the loan.

33.    They have received notice from the Tamil Nadu State Legal Service in 2013, and had duly appeared and apprised the concerned Authority of the loan status.

34.    They have received the cheques number 073106 and 073137 from the Complainant. It is submitted that the cheque number 073106 has been returned for discrepancy reason (Alteration on the cheques are prohibited under CTS clearing). The said cheque copy is annexed and marked as Exhibit-G and the cheque number 073137 has been encashed towards the payment of loan. The content of paragraph 11 is denied by the Opposite Party. Complainant never visited the bank to discuss on this matter, instead Complainant sent his lawyer for discussion, Opposite Party is unable to share any account related information with the third party, as they adhere to strict security policy in maintaining privacy and confidentiality of our customer's account details and therefore, the Opposite Party requested the lawyer to come along with the Complainant. Further, due to non-receipt of payments a demand notice under S.13 (2) was sent to the Complainant.

35.    It is denied that the Complainant has suffered any harassment and mental agony because of the Opposite Party. The statement of account sent to the customers by the Opposite Party has the details of the monthly interest charged and the repayment received in the loan account. The policy number 500035 stated by the Complainant is a policy availed by the Complainant underwritten by Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited for Insurance coverage for Rs.1,00,000/-. Opposite Party wish to state that, the Insurance products are obligations only of the insurance company. They are not bank deposits or r obligations of or guaranteed by the Bank or any of its affiliates. All claims under the policy are solely decided upon by the insurance company. Bank at no point of time assures or represents anything about the insurance, the quality of claims processing and cannot be made responsible for claims, recovery of claims, or for processing of or clearing of claims, in any manner whatsoever. This is also published in the Opposite Party's website. Concern of the Complainant is regarding the updating of the status of the loan account to Credit information Companies (CIC's), it is submitted that the CIC's are initiative driven and based on the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, by which all banks are required to share credit information of their customers including but not limited to the current balance, payment history, etc. along with demographic details. This is in accordance with the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005. 36.  It is submitted that in light of the facts and circumstances as narrated hereinabove, the reliefs sought by the Complainant in the prayer clause under reply are misconceived, baseless, frivolous and vexatious qua the Opposite Party and deserve outright dismissal with exemplary costs. The Complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed in the present complaint qua the Opposite Party.

III.    The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit, in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A23. The Opposite Party had submitted his Written Version. Proof Affidavit of Opposite Party was closed.

V. Points for Consideration:-

 

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

POINT NO. 1 :-

37.    The Contentions of the Complainant are that he had availed a home loan for Rs.5,00,000/- bearing loan account number 414735 on 14.10.2005 which was repayable in 180 equated monthly instalments at Rs.4,706/- per month, with a rate of interest @7.75%. He was regularly paying the instalment amount by ECS through his bank. He had paid a total sum of Rs. 8,61,196/- as on 22.07.2019 through ECS including a lump sum payment of Rs. 80,000/- (Rs 30,000/- Rs. 50,000/-). To his surprise the Opposite Party gave a letter to the Complainant dated 21.09.2011 stating that the period of payment is changed as 295 months instead of 180 months, the said change of period was without his consent, for which a reply dated 11.12.2011 was given by him. The Opposite Party had given another letter arbitrarily changed the amount of EMI to Rs. 5,785/- per month instead of Rs. 4,706/-, which was also without his consent. Further by letter dated 17.09.2013 the Opposite Party had changed the period of repayment to 300 months from 295 months.

38.    Further the Opposite Party had refused for pre-closure of his loan inspite of several letters/personal visits made by him. The Opposite Party in their letter dated 18.01.2012 had falsely stated that they had sent a self-explanatory pre-closure letter (stated to have mentioned the pre-closure amount and pre-closure procedure) through M/s. Blue Dart Courier and the same was returned to them undelivered as they could not locate the Complainant's address. Hence it is clear that the Opposite Party had deliberately denied for pre-closure of the loan and thereby caused him huge loss by way of unwanted interest payment and also caused mental agony.

39.    In this regard he had given a letter to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on 13.12.2013 T.N.SL.S.A No. 5312/CC/2013 the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority issued a notice the Opposite Party to appear before the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. When the amount was available in his account, the Opposite Party had orally stated that there is no amount available in his bank to avail ECSand stated that he is a defaulter, whereas the Opposite Party deliberately abstained from taking the ECS amount from his Bank for 7 months and subsequently started taking the ECS amount.

40.    The Opposite Party had sent a letter dated 24.11.2017 regarding change in the interest rate and an E-mail dated 06.11.2018 stating that the rate of interest is changed as 8.75% instead of 7%. The Opposite Party declared the Complainant as defaulter and included in the list of defaulter, so as he cannot seek any loan from any bank.

41.    The Opposite Party sent a letter dated 24.04.2019 demanding repayment of the balance amount and threatening to take action against him, for which he had relied on 30.5.2019. They further stated that they will not take the amount through ECS. On receipt of the said letter, he had sent a cheque for Rs. 32,942/- to the Opposite Party bearing cheque no. 073106 of Central Bank of India and the said letter with cheque was acknowledged by the Opposite Party. However, the Opposite Party has not given credit for the said sum of Rs. 32,942/- still, and furthermore the Opposite Party termed the Complainant as "defaulter". Further, since the Opposite Party has not taken the ECS from the bank, he had sent a sum of Rs. 4,706/- by cheque No. 073137 to the Opposite Party cheque dated 13.06.2019.

42.    When he approached the bank to meet the manager to enquire about the above facts, he was not allowed to meet the manager. The Opposite Party has not provided any working sheet for the due amount and simply demanded him to pay the dues and they have not stated the exact due amount. The above said Insurance appears to be a forged document and the Insurance Number given by the Opposite Party also appeared to be fake.

43.    The Opposite Party at their own accord arbitrarily changed the period of repayment and increased the rate of interest and EMI amount without any details and without Complainant's concurrence. Because of the act of the Opposite Party, he had suffered heavy loss. Furthermore, his name was also included in "CIBIL" restraining him from getting any loan from any bank. The Opposite Party with a view to extract more money made such illegal action of which he had suffered both mentally and physically. He had offered for one time settlement but the Opposite Party refused for the same. Because of the Opposite Party's arbitrary and unlawful action, he was under huge financial loss and he was unable to attend his day to day work peacefully due to the harassment and mental agony caused by the Opposite Party.

44.    In spite of several opportunities provided to the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party had not filed their proof affidavit and their evidence was closed on 24.03.2023.  

45.    The contentions made in the written version of the Opposite Party are that the complaint is liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage itself as not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction, as they have initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and if the Complainant wishes to challenge the action taken by them he should approach the appropriate Forum i.e. the Debts Recovery Tribunal and at the appropriate stage as is stipulated under the said Act. The Complainant has made allegations pertaining to rate of interest only in an attempt to get the matter within the ambit of the Ld. Forum's jurisdiction. However, the actual cause of action, if at all any, is the initiation of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act by the Opposite Party as a secured lender, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of any court/forum except the Debts Recovery Tribunal. A copy of the Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was sent to the Complainant on April 24, 2019.

46.    The Complainant in the year 2005 approached the Opposite Party for a home loan amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- for the period of 180 months andat the time of sanction of loan, the Complainant was informed that the interest shall be variable in nature. The policy number 500035 stated by the Complainant is a policy availed by the Complainant underwritten by Birla Sunlife Insurance Company Limited for Insurance coverage for Rs.1,00,000/- and the Insurance products are obligations only of the insurance company. They were not bank deposits or obligations of or guaranteed by the Bank or any of its affiliates. All claims under the policy are solely decided upon by the insurance company. Bank at no point of time assures or represents anything about the insurance, the quality of claims processing and cannot be made responsible for claims, recovery of claims, or for processing of or clearing of claims, in any manner whatsoever, which was also published in the Opposite Party Bank's website.

47.    The Complainant has been regularly paying the amount through his Indian Bank, was denied. Immediately after the disbursement of the Loan in June 2005, the Opposite Party had increased the ROI from 7.75 % to 825% with effect from October 2005 as per the variable interest rate agreed by the Complainant and the Complainant continued to pay the same EMI all through until September 2018. His loan tenure got extended owing to the increase in the rate but the Complainant stopped paying since October, 2018 which has resulted in the present dues of Rs. 3,38,211.30 in the Loan Account no. 414735 respectively as on 13.09.2519. The total amount of payment received as on 23.08.2019 is Rs.8,18,842/- including the payment towards penal charges and ECS returns in the loan account.

48.    Based on Complainant's request for the pre-closure of the loan in December, 2011, they had issued and dispatched the pre-closure letter via Bluedart courier air way bill no. 40329841160 which was returned undelivered on December 29,2011. It is hereby submitted that accordingly, the request was cancelled in February, 2012 and also they did not receive any payments towards the said loan pre-closure amount. Hence it is denied that they had deliberately rejected the request for pre-closure of the loan.

49.    They had received notice from the Tamil Nadu State Legal Service in 2013, had duly appeared and apprised the concerned Authority of the loan status.

50.    They had received the cheques number 073106 and 073137 from the Complainant, but the cheque number 073106 has been returned for discrepancy reason as Alteration on the cheques are prohibited under CTS clearing and the cheque number 073137 has been encashed towards the payment of loan. Complainant never visited the bank to discuss on this matter, instead Complainant sent his lawyer for discussion, they were unable to share any account related information with the third party, as they adhere to strict security policy in maintaining privacy and confidentiality of our customer's account details and hence they had requested the lawyer to come along with the Complainant. Further, due to non-receipt of payments a demand notice under S.13 (2) was sent to the Complainant.

51.    It is denied that the Complainant has suffered any harassment and mental agony because of the Opposite Party. The statement of account sent to the customers by the Opposite Party has the details of the monthly interest charged and the repayment received in the loan account.

52.    Concern of the Complainant is regarding the updating of the status of the loan account to Credit information Companies (CIC's), it is submitted that the CIC's are initiative driven and based on the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, by which all banks are required to share credit information of their customers including but not limited to the current balance, payment history, etc. along with demographic details. This is in accordance with the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005.

53.    The reliefs sought by the Complainant in the prayer clause under reply are misconceived, baseless, frivolous and vexatious qua the Opposite Party and deserve outright dismissal with exemplary costs. The Complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed in the present complaint qua the Opposite Party.

54.    On perusal of records, it is clear that the loan availed by the Complainant is on variable rate of Interest though the interest was initially at the rate of 7.75% as seen in Ex.A-1. Further it is noted that whenever there was change in interest rate the Opposite Party had duly intimated the same to the Complainant as evidenced from Ex.A-7, A-9, A-12, A-16, A-17, Letters dated 21.09.2011, 17.11.2011, 17.09.2013, 24.11.2017 and Mail dated 06.11.2018, respectively. It is noted that on 24.04.2019 the Opposite Party had issued Demand notice under Section 13(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Ex.A-20, which was replied by the Complainant on 30.05.2019 as seen in Ex.A-21 and a rejoinder was sent by the Opposite Party Bank on 13,06,2019, Ex.A-22. On the other hand the Complainant had approached the Opposite Party Bank for Final settlement by way of Letter dated 14.11.2011 and requested for details of amount pending as well as interest arrived as seen in Ex.A-8, for which a reply was sent by the Opposite Party as seen in Ex.A-9 wherein it was stated that the pre-closure amount could not be confirmed on assumption basis and regretted for not providing the fore-closure amount as on December, 2011 and had provided the interest amount charged was Rs.2,79,378/-. Hence he had sent a legal notice dated 17.12.2011 to the Opposite Party as seen in Ex.A-10, which was replied by the Opposite Party as seen in Ex.A-11.

55.    On discussions made above and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the Opposite Party had intimated the Complainant whenever there was change in interest accordingly there was change in the period of instalments with change in instalment amount. Hence, the Opposite Party had acted diligently and performed their duty. The Complainant had failed to prove any negligent act or deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. Therefore this Commission of the considered view that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

POINT Nos.2 and 3:-

56.    As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint and hence not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 14^th of  June 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                  B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                         MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	18.06.2005	Opposite Party Loan Sanction Letter
Ex.A2	22.11.2005 27.03.2006 29.07.2006	Opposite Party give the cheque (3 times) 3 cheques
Ex.A3	23.11.2005	Opposite Party false insurance plan letter
Ex.A4	11.06.2005	Party give challan copy paid the amount of Rs.2755/-
Ex.A5		Party paid the amount to the Bank Statement
Ex.A6	22.01.2009 26.10.2009	Party paid the amount through cheque Rs.50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- dated 26.10.2009, 22.01.2009
Ex.A7	21.09.2011	Opposite Party give the letter change the instalments month 180 to 295
Ex.A8	14.11.2011	Party give the letter final settlement home loan dated 14.11.2011
Ex.A9	17.11.2011	Opposite Party give reply to 14.11.2011 letter dated 17.11.2011
Ex.A10	17.12.2011	Party given legal notice to the Bank on 17.12.2011
Ex.A11	18.01.2012	Opposite Party given the reply legal notice on 17.12.2011 reply notice dated 18.01.2012
Ex.A12	17.09.2013	Opposite Party give letter change the instalments month 180 to 300 month dated 17.09.2013
Ex.A13	13.12.2013	Party go to the legal service authority in Chennai on 13.12.2013
Ex.A14	12.12.2018	Opposite Party give the instalment E.C.S
Ex.A15	31.10.2017 to 20.05.2019	Party Bank statement at that time stop ECS
Ex.A16	24.11.2017	Opposite Party give the letter change the interest rate
Ex.A17	06.11.2018	Opposite Party give the email letter change the interest rate
Ex.A18	24.04.2019	Opposite Party demanding the repayment letter on 24.04.2019
Ex.A19	27.04.2019	Party paid the amount Rs.32,942/- through cheque with letter dated 27.04.2019
Ex.A20	14.06.2019	Party paid the amount Rs.4706/- through cheque dated 14.06.019
Ex.A21	30.05.2019	Party give the reply to the Bank on 30.05.2019
Ex.A22	13.06.2019	Opposite Party give notice on 13.06.2019
Ex.A23	12.07.2019	Opposite Party give in my name in SIBI

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

- NIL-

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                     B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                              MEMBER I                            PRESIDENT