DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Consumer Complaint Case No: 451 of 2011] -------------------------------- Date of Institution : 20.09.2011 Date of Decision : 01.10.2012 -------------------------------- [1] Mr. A.S. Rangi s/o Col. B.S. Rangi, House No. 70, Amrawati Enclave, Panchkula. [2] Col. B.S. Rangi, House No. 70, Amrawati Enclave, Panchkula. ---Complainants V E R S U S Standard Chartered Bank, S.C.O. No. 137-138, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager. ---Opposite Party BEFORE: SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Counsel for Complainants. Sh. Sourabh Bindra, Counsel for Opposite Party. PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER 1. Complainants have filed the present complaint, against the Opposite Party on the ground that the Complainants availed a Home Loan worth Rs.25.00 lacs in October, 2004, which was sanctioned, vide letter dated 25.11.2004 (Annexure C-1). Home Loan A/c of the Complainants was 43538177 and the agreed rate of interest was only 7.40% per annum. The Complainants have been primarily regular in paying the EMIs despite the fact that the Opposite Party kept on increasing the rate of interest without any rationale. The Opposite Party issued various letters through which they reviewed and increased the rate of interest annexed collectively as Annexure C-2, the rate of interest ultimately rosed to 14.15%. The Complainant raised this issue during their several meetings with the then Manager of the Opposite Party but no proper response was received from their end. The Complainants repeatedly requested the Opposite Party to reduce the rate of interest as the other Banks were offering lesser rate of interest than what was being charged by the Opposite Party. The Complainants have cited that the State Bank of India, Panchkula, was charging only 8% per annum as against 12.90% by the Opposite Party at the time of change over. A chart showing the competitive rates of the SBI for the corresponding period is annexed as Annexure C-9. Thus the Complainants claim that they were compelled to pay more interest for no fault of theirs. Aggrieved of the acts of the Opposite Party, the Complainants requested for a pre-payment sanction of their loan account, which was given to them on 26.09.2009, after a lapse of nearly six months as the same was applied in the month of June, 2009. The Opposite Party levied pre-payment charges of Rs.61,435/-, though the Complainants claim that it is against the RBI directions, as well as they claim that they should be rewarded for paying up the loan before time, rather than be penalized for it. The Complainants closed their Home Loan on October, 14, 2009, and the Statement of Accounts is annexed as Annexure C-11 and C-12 are the guidelines of R.B.I. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, Complainants have preferred the present complaint seeking the following relief:- i) | The OP Bank be directed to refund the amount of pre-payment charges of Rs.61,435/- illegally charged, along with interest @ 15% p.a. from October, 2009, till the date of payment. | ii) | The OP Bank be directed overhaul the entire account of the Complainant by applying various rates of interest staring from 7.4% p.a. and not beyond 11% p.a. as per Annexure C-9 (rates of interest on Home Loan by SBI, a leading Public Sector Bank) and an amount of Rs.3.00 lacs be paid as token damages and compensation. | iii) | OPs No.1 and 2 be directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the unfair trade practice adopted by them. | iv) | OPs be directed to pay a token amount of Rs.25,000/- as punitive damages to be credited to the Legal Services Aid Fund. | v) | The complaint be allowed with legal costs of Rs.11,000/-. | vi) | Any other relief which this court deems fit, may also be granted in favour of the Complainant. |
The complaint of the complainants is duly supported by the detailed affidavit of Sh. A.S. Rangi (Complainant No.1). 2. The Opposite Party has contested the claim of the complainant by filing their reply, taking preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint is not maintainable in its present form, as the Complainants do not have any locus-standi to file the present complaint, as they do not fall under the category of ‘Consumer’ as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, nor any cause of action has arisen in favour of the Complainants qua the answering Opposite Party. The present complaint being false, frivolous and malicious deserves to be dismissed with special costs. On merits, the Opposite Party has repeated their preliminary objections, while replying to the averments of the present complaint, in their para-wise reply. Opposite Party has admitted the issuance of home loan of Rs.25.00 lacs in the month of October, 2004. Even the initial rate of interest under the “variable” category @ 7.40% is admitted. The Opposite Party claims that the sanction letter was duly signed by the Complainant, thereby acknowledging the terms & conditions stated therein, and having acknowledged and accepted the terms & conditions of the loan vis-à-vis loan amount rate of interest, type of interest, loan tenure, processing fees, pre-payment penalty charges, part payment penalty charges etc. Complainants cannot be raise objections at a latter stage with regard to these issues. The rise in rate of interest is attributed to operating expenses, actual cost of funds to the Bank etc. and the Complainants were duly informed and intimated about these changes, prior to any such revision, which is admitted by the Complainants. The Opposite Party also claims that the allegations of the delay in sanctioning the pre- termination quotation (PTQ) are totally out of context as the Complainants had approached the phone banking unit of the Opposite Party with their request. Upon receipt of this request, the authorized representative, deputed by the Opposite Party, tried to understand the reason for closure of the loan account, in order to retain the relationship with the Complainants, but at the instance of the Complainants a pre-termination quotation was issued in the 2nd week of July, 2009. This offer was valid for a period of fifteen days and as the Complainants did not respond, the same became null and void. The Complainants once again desired for a pre-termination quotation the same was issued on 25.9.2009 to facilitate closure of loan account. This communication was shared with the Complainants, through e-mails dated 25.9.2009. The Opposite Party has quoted the contents of the e-mail in para 4 (at Pg.5) of their reply. The reply to this communication was sent on 30.9.2009 (Annexure-III), thus, the allegation of the Complainant of the delay is totally out of context. The 2.5% rate of interest charged ad-velorem on the principle outstanding amount is also as per the agreement (Annexure-I colly). Thus, claiming no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the answering Opposite Party has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs. The reply of the Opposite Party is duly supported by detailed affidavit of Sh.Purshotam Thakur. 3. Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Party, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions. 4. The fact with regard to the availing of a loan of Rs.25.00 lacs by the Complainants and having entered into an agreement with the Opposite Party on being offered the same is admitted by the Opposite Party. Even the initial variable rate of interest beginning 7.4% p.a. valid for one month from the due date of sanction is found mentioned in the loan sanction letter dated 25.11.2004. There is a clear cut mention about the pre-payment fee @2.5% ad-velorem on the principal outstanding, as well as on all other payments made in the preceding 180 days is found mentioned in the terms and conditions annexed along with the loan sanction letter. The Complainants having accepted and singed their consent on the loan offer document are bound by it. We feel that there was a specific agreement between the parties, and the Complainants having entered into an agreement by their free will, cannot claim any ignorance, nor there can be any reason for them to get out of this agreement and claim the same to be an unfair trade practice. 5. The claim of the Complainants that the Opposite Party had repeatedly increased the rate of interest, within a short span of one year, is also of no meaning, because these issues are far beyond the limitation period of the present complaint. The Complainants failed to take cudgels on different cause of actions as and when they arose. There cannot be any reason for them to raise these issues after having closed their loan account with the Opposite Party, as there was ample time and opportunity at their hand since 2004 to 2009, when they finally closed the loan account. Hence, the prayer of the Opposite Party under Para 14(b) of their complaint is totally out of context. 6. The claim of the Complainants seeking refund of amount of pre-payment charges of Rs.61,435/-, which the Opposite Party has realized as per their pre-closure statement dated 25.9.2009 is to be seen in terms of the agreement entered into by both the parties. While going through the loan document, as well as the terms and condition of the loan sanction letter, it is found that the home loan availed by the Complainant thus attract a 2.5% per annum rate of interest on the principal outstanding + any amount pre-paid over the last 180 days. A letter dated 2nd May, 2006 (Annexure C-2) also repeats the same condition whereas the rate of interest on other loans i.e. loan against property or home saver loans, the schedule is found changed. Hence, in these circumstances, the Opposite Party, to our mind, was entitled to recover the pre-closure fee/pre-payment charges at the rate of 2.50% p.a. on the principal outstanding. However, we fail to understand as to how the Opposite Party has preferred to charge the pre-payment charges @2.76% p.a. inclusive of service tax, as we do not find any mention about the service tax component to be levied on pre-closure charges in the agreement annexed at Pg. 19 to 48. We are also of the view that the Opposite Party while forwarding the pre-closure statement to the Complainants is not rendering any additional service, for which they could be entitled for the service tax. It was the obligation of the Opposite Party to supply the pre-closure statement and help the Complainants if they desired to pre-close their account and this aspect is a part and parcel of the loan agreement entered into by the parties. Thus, the claim of pre-payment charges @2.75% p.a. is found to be against the terms & conditions, as well as the loan agreement. Hence, the Opposite Party should refund the additional charges illegally claimed by them in excess of 2.5% of the principal amount. 7. In the light of above observations, we find a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party as they have acted contrary to their own terms and conditions made available to the Complainant at the time of subscription of the loan as well as the loan agreement. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant succeeds against the Opposite Party, and the same is PARTIALLY allowed. The Opposite Party is directed, to:- [a] To refund the amount of pre-payment charges realized in excess of 2.5% of principal amount from the Complainant; [b] To pay Rs.10,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental harassment to the Complainant; [c] To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation; 8. The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by Opposite Party; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] of para 7 above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.7,000/-, from the date of institution of the present complaint i.e. 20.09.2011, till it is paid. 9. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 01st October, 2012 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER ‘Dutt’
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | |
