Date of Filing: 08.01.2017
Date of Order: 23.09.2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER
ON THIS THE MONDAY DAY THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER. 2019
C.C.No.52 / 2017
Between
Sri Krishna Kumar,
S/o. Hari Shankar, Age: 35years,
Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o. Plot No.28 - 29,
I Floor, Flat No.102, Road No.3,
Huda Sai Nagar Colony,
Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad – 70, T.S. ……Complainant
And
M/s. RBL Bank Ltd.,
(Rep.by its Branch Manager),
D.No.6-3-865, Ground Floor,
MY Home Jupally, Opp: Green Park,
Green Lands, Ameerpet,
Hyderabad – 500 016,
Telangana, Ph.no.040-40805555 ….Opposite Party
Counsel for the complainant : M/s. Moshe Marpu
Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 : Mr. M.Srinivas Reddy
O R D E R
(By Sri. Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
1) This complaint has been preferred under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
2) The complaint averments in brief are that :
The complainant is a private employee and he approached the opposite party bank for personal loan of Rs.7,50,000/-. The opposite party bank collected KYC and other required documents and promised him to sanction the loan of Rs.7,50,000/- with interest at 14% p.a. and repayable by EMI of Rs.14,000/-per month for a period of 5 years. But contrary to it opposite party sanctioned loan of Rs.6,10,000/- and fixed EMI of Rs.17,478/- payable in four years period and interest charged is 15% p.a. and it shows opposite party bank played a fraud and cheated him.
The complainant came to know about EMI payable is Rs.17,478/- when his banker started deducting EMI at 17,478/- due to which complainant was disturbed and caused financial troubles to him. It also reflected his bad rating of CIBIL score. The complainant requested the opposite party bank to examine why only Rs.6,10,000/- loan is sanctioned having promised to sanction Rs.7,50,000/- and why rate of interest was fixed at 15% p.a. instead of agreed at 14% p.a. As he agreed to pay EMIs approximately at Rs.14,000/- per month he was compelled to pay excess amount of Rs.3,500/- per moth which is illegal . There was no proper response from the opposite party for the complainants request to examine the issue. Hence the complainant got issued a legal notice on 15.12.2016 calling for explanation from opposite party bank as to why reduced loan was sanctioned and why EMI of Rs.17,478/-e was compelled to pay excess amount of Rs.3,500/- per month it is illegal there was H fixed instead of Rs.14,000/-. The opposite party gave a reply on 30.12.2016 denying the contents of legal notice got issued by the complainant. Hence the present complaint. .
3) Opposite parties have filed a detailed version denying each and every averments of the complaint. The stand of the opposite party bank in the written version is that complainant approached it stating that he had a personal loan with ICICI bank and intend to close it on sanction of enhanced loan from opposite party bank and submitted a loan application on 14.9.2016 agreeing for the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The bank collected KYC documents for processing the loan. The bank never promised to sanction of loan of Rs.7,50,000/- and in fact complainant was informed that the bank will sanction the loan as per his eligibility and credit worthiness in the financial market and complainant agreed for the same and wanted to ensure that his loan with ICICI Bank Limited should be closed.
The complainant submitted the ( prepared) letter issued by the ICICI bank , wherein it was clearly mentioned that the amount of Rs.4,17,550.20ps., would have to be paid by the complainant for pre-closure of the said loan. The bank having considered repayment of the complainant , sanctioned amount of Rs.6,28,141/- out of which the amount of Rs.14,578/- was deducted towards processing fee and service tax and an amount of Rs.3,141/- towards insurance was deducted and an amount of Rs.4,17,550/- was paid to ICICI bank to pre-close the complainant’s loan with the said bank and balance amount of Rs.1,92,902/- was disbursed to the complainant.
If the complainant was not willing to accept sanction of loan of Rs.6,28,141/- should not have accepted it and could have rejected the same. The complainant at the time of signing of loan disbursement was clearly knowing of the loan amount sanctioned and disbursed to him with applicable interest rate and monthly installments payable and the tenure of it. The complainant having agreed for the same and executed loan agreement along with promissory note for an amount of Rs.6,28,141/- which evidence that he had accepted the said loan amount and agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the loan and repayment of the installments with 15% interest rate by way of 48 equated monthly installments at Rs.17,478/- through out repayment tenure. The complainant knew about the sanction and disbursement of loan amount on 28 and 29th September, 2016 on which date’s he executed loan agreement and signed , promissory note and personal loan disbursement form. These documents clearly discloses not only the sanctioned loan but also the rate of interest and fixed EMI its tenure. Hence it is not open for the complainant to say that he came to know about the details of the loan sanction and disbursement only at the time of deduction of his first EMI. The complainant being knowledgeable person new about the process the bank while sanctioning the loan to the customers since he had a previous experience with ICICI bank. Either there was fraud or cheating on the part of the opposite party bank in sanction and disbursement of personal loan to the complainant and these allegations are made falsely for the purpose of this complaint. The complainant never approached the opposite party bank requesting for details of the loan sanction and disbursement and documents executed because the copies of the same were furnished to him at the time of execution itself. In fact copy of personal loan agreement was furnished to him in response to mail dated 13.12.2016. The bank never promised to sanction a loan of Rs.7,50,000/- and never agreed for fixed EMI at Rs.14,000/- per month and interest at 14% p.a.. To the legal notice of the complainant a suitable reply was issued with true facts. The complaint is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs to the opposite party bank.
4) In the enquiry the complainant got filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the material facts of the complaint and to support the same he has got filed Office copy of legal notice , postal receipts and acknowledgements there of and reply thereto as A1 to A4. For the opposite party the evidence affidavit of one Mr. Neeraj Thakur , its Center Manager, collections and GPA holder is got filed. The substance of his evidence affidavit is in line with the stand taken in the written version. Through him opposite party bank has got exhibited 9 documents . Both sides have filed written arguments.
5) On consideration of the material brought on the record the following points have emerged for consideration :-
1. Whether the opposite party bank indulged in unfair trade practice by not disclosing the loan amount sanctioned and rate of interest charged and EMI fixed ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint?
3. To what relief?
6) Point No.1: The essence of the complainant’s case is that he approached the opposite party bank for a personal loan and he was promised by the bank to sanction him the loan of Rs.7,50,000/- repayable by way of EMI’s at 14,000/- for a period of 5 years and interest chargeable at 14% p.a. It is also his version that opposite party collected KYC and related documents from him with his signatures and when the first EMI was deducted from his salary account he came to know that loan sanctioned was Rs,6,28,000/- and EMI was fixed at Rs.17,478/- and interest charged by the bank is 15% p.a. and thus there was excess payment of Rs.3,500/- per month which is effecting his monthly budget. Whereas the stand of opposite party bank is it never promised to complainant to sanction of loan of Rs.7,50,000/- and in fact the sanction of loan to a customer depends upon the eligibility of credit worthiness of the customer in the market. The complainant approached it for sanction of personal loan has intend to pre-close a personal loan with ICICI bank and he requested for enhance loan from opposite party bank. It is also stand of opposite party bank that the complainant has produced a pre payment letter issued by ICICI bank mentioning that to pre-close the loan of the complainant with the said bank the amount required was Rs.4,17,550.20ps. The bank having considered the eligibility and credit worthiness of the complainant agreed to sanction Rs.6,28,141/- as personal loan repayable by way of 48 equated monthly installments of Rs.17,478/- each. Opposite party bank clearly mentioned that out of the sanctioned loan amount Rs.6,28,141/- an amount of Rs.14,548/- towards processing fee service tax and other amount of Rs.3,141/- towards insurance premium were deducted and an amount of Rs.4,17,550/- was paid to ICICI bank towards pre-closure of complainant’s loan with the said bank and the balance amount of Rs.1,92,902/- was disbursed to the complainant. The complainant had not disclosed this break-up figures for the reasons best known to him.
The complainant alleges that the opposite party bank promised to sanction of personal loan of Rs.7,50,000/- repayable by way of 60 EMI’s of Rs.14,000/- for a period of 5 years and interest will be at 14% p.a. has not filed even a scrap pf paper in support of these version . On the other hand the opposite party bank has filed documents in support of its version. Exhibit B2 is the letter for prepay of personal loan account of the complainant mentioning that an amount of Rs.4,17,550/- is required to be paid for the closure of the loan account by 20th September, 2016. Exhibit B2 is the personal loan disbursement request form signed by the complainant requesting the opposite party bank to disburse the sanctioned loan amount to the ICICI Bank. In this Exhibit B3 loan known amount is shown at 6,28,141 out of it Rs.14,548/- was deducted towards processing fee and service tax and further some of Rs.3,141/- towards insurance premium and Rs.1,92,902 as net disbursement amount to the complainant’s as a customer and it shows balance amount of Rs.4,17,550/- was paid to the ICICI Bank towards complainant’s personal loan account with the said bank. This Exhibit B3 is signed by the complainant. So it is evident from this the complainant was quite aware of loan amount sanctioned to him and disbursement of the same when he signed it. The other documents containing the same details is Exhibit B4 captioned as disbursal memo dated 29.9.2016. It is clearly mentioned in this Exhibit A 4 loan tenure is 48 months and EMI at Rs.17,478/- and loan sanctioned is Rs.6,28,141 and effective rate of interest is at 14.99%. This Exhibit B4 is also singed by the complainant. Exhibit B5 is the personal loan agreement executed by the complainant with opposite party Bank. In this agreement also the details of sanctioned loan amount, rate of interest agreed by the complainant, loan tenure and fixed EMI, disbursement details are mentioned . Exhibit B6 is the Demand promissory note executed by the complainant in favour of the opposite party bank on 28.9.2016 mentioned the loan amount repayable by him Rs.6,28,141, rate of interest at 14.99% . These document clearly supports opposite party Bank version, and it falsifies by the claim of the complainant that till deducting of first EMI he was not aware either the sanctioned loan amount or disbursement details and EMI and rate of interest being paid by him. Absolutely there is no material on the record to support the allegations of the complainant that the opposite party bank has indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence the point is answered against the complainant.
Point NO.2:- Since the complainant failed to substantiate his allegation of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party bank he is not 0 entitled for any relief in the present complaint.
8) PointNo.3:- In the result the complaint is dismissed. NO order as to costs.
Dictated to steno transcribed and typed by her and pronounced by us on this the 23rd day of September, 2019.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
NIL
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1 - Copy of Legal notice Dt.15.12.2016
Ex.A2 & A3 – Postal receipts
Ex.A3 – Acknowledgement cards
Ex.A4 – Original reply notice dt.30.12.2016.
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:
Ex.B1 – Retail loan application Form
Ex.B2 - Prepayment of Personal Account
Ex.B3 – Personal Loan Disbursal Request Form
Ex.B4 – Disbursal memo
Ex.B5 - Personal Loan Agreement
Ex.B6 – Demand promissory note
Ex.B7 – Reply legal notice
Ex.B8 – Statement of transactions in LAA Account
Ex.B9 – Fore closure Simulation Term loan
MEMBER PRESIDENT
