IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Friday  the 29th   day of  December, 2017

Filed on 01.01.2016

Present

1.  Smt. Elizabeth George (President)

2.  Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)

3.  Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)

in 

C.C.No.201/2011

between

 Complainant:-      Opposite Parties:-

 

Sri. Salim Babu.P.K 1. M/s Indus Ind Bank Ltd

Kanjirathinikal, Cheruvally             Alappuzha Branch

Kayamkulam, Alappuzha District Court Road,

Alappuzha.

Rep. By Branch Manager

 

2. M/s Indus Ind Bank Ltd

T. Nagar, Chennai

Tamil Nadu

Rep. By its Manager

 

O R D E R

SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER) 

 

 

The complainant case in precise is as follows:-

The complainant is working in BSNL, Alappuzha.  He on 7th May 2006 availed a housing loan of Rs. 3,42,348/-(Rupees Three lakh Forty two thousand three hundred and forty eight only) from the opposite parties.  The interest rate offered to the said loan was 12.5%.  On availing the instant loan the complainant was effecting repayment regularly without fail.. When the matters so stood, the complainant received intimation from the opposite parties to the effect the rate of interest was enhanced to 13.5. %.  The increase in the rate of interest by the opposite parties was without the consent or knowledge of the complainant. Upon receiving the said intimation the complainant intimated the opposite parties that the new modified rate of interest the opposite parties fixed is not acceptable to the complainant.  The complainant or else requested the opposite parties to revise the tenure of repayment of the material loan to 35 equal monthly installments.  With the result the 1st opposite party directed the complainant to pay an amount of Rs. 8916(Eight thousand nine hundred and sixteen only) per month, and the 2nd opposite party required him to pay an EMI of Rs. 9015/-. The calculation made by the opposite parties visibly appeared mutually contradictory.  According to the complainant the calculation worked out by the 1st opposite party was correct and reasonable.  The complainant vide letter dated 25th May 2011 requested the 2nd opposite party to issue revised EMI chart showing accurate calculation of EMI payable by the complainant.  Notwithstanding the complainant’s earnest request, the 2nd opposite party who is the authority if modifying EMI has not made any sort of response as to the complainant’s request.  The complainant is entitled to get the revised chart of the repayment of the material loan.  The opposite parties committed deficiency of service.  The complainant got aggrieved on this approached this Forum for compensation and relief.  

2. On notice beig sent, the opposite parties turned up and filed version. According to the opposite parties, the complainant availed a loan amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- and the rate of interest was fixed as 7.5.%.  The repayment tenure for the said loan was twenty years.  The complainant so availed the loan from the opposite parties on specifically being convinced of its terms and conditions.  The complainant even entered into an agreement in writing with the opposite parties as the material loan accepting all its terms.  There after the 2nd opposite party issued an intimation letter dated 30th April 2011 to the complainant modifying the rate of interest to 13.5%.  AS per the opposite parties when the interest is so revisited either the EMI payable would be revised or sometimes the tenure of the repayment terms would be extended.  Some other cases both would be modified   the covenants of the agreement entered into between the complainant and the opposite parties, the opposite parties are so authorized to revise the repayment schedule as aforesaid.  The complainant’s consent or knowledge is not inevitable, the opposite parties contend.  In the meantime on 25 th May 2011 The complainant requested in writing the opposite parties to reschedule the tenure of payment as thirty six months.    The opposite parties in line with the complainant’s request fixed the EMI as Rs. 9015/-.  However the complainant was reluctant to make payment of EMI Rs. 9015/- but has been paying Rs. 5200/- the earlier EMI.  Meanwhile over again strictly in line with the rules the rate of interest was enhanced from 13.5 to 14.75%.  The complainant was duly informed as to the said hike in the rate of interest vide letter dated 29th July 2017.  The EMI as reversed to the previous amount of Rs. 5200/- on extending payment period to 141 months.  The 1st opposite party is not empowered to revise or restructure either the rate of interest or payment schedule.  The opposite parties have not committed deficiency of service.  The complainant has no cause of action.  The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost.

3.  The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant as PW1, and the documents ExtsA1 to A3 were marked.  The opposite parties’ power of attorney holder file proof affidavit and the documents Ext.B1 to B5 were marked.  

4. Keeping in mind the contention of the parties, the questions that crop up for consideration are:-

(a) Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency in service?

(b) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

5. The complainant’s case is that the complainant availed a housing loan of Rs. 3,42,348/- from the opposite parties.  The rate of interest of the said loan was 12.5%. Subsequently the opposite parties issued intimation to the complainant to the effect that the rate of interest was raised to 13.5%.  The opposite parties had not sought the complainant’s consent prior to the interest was increased. However the complainant requested the opposite parties to reschedule the payment tenure as 36 months by restructuring the EMI.  Consequent upon this the 1st and the 2nd opposite parties required the complainant to remit two different EMIS to repay the debt due to the opposite parties.  The 1st opposite party directed the complainant to pay an amount of Rs. 8916/- per months, and the 2nd opposite party required him to pay an EMI of Rs. 9015/-. According to the complainant the 1st opposite parties’ calculation of EMI was correct and reasonable.  The complainant wide letter dated 25th May 2011 requested the 2nd opposite party to issue revised loan payment schedule to which the opposite party turned a cold shoulder.  The opposite parties service is deficient, the complainant vehemently contends.  According to the opposite parties the loan amount the complainat availed was Rs. 3,50,000/-  and the rate of interest for the said loan initially was 7.5%. The repayment tenure for the said loan was twenty years.  The complainant availed the said loan on agreeing in writing all terms and conditions as to the same.  As per the material agreement the opposite parties are empowered to revise the repayment scheduled in line with the fluctuation in the rate of interest that might occur from time to time.  In April 2011, the rate of interest was raised to 13.5%, the complainant requested the opposite parties to reschedule the tenure of payment as thirty six months after restructuring the EMI.  Though the opposite parties modified the EMI as Rs. 9015/- the complainant has only been paying Rs. 5200/- earlier EMI.  Over again when the interest rate was hiked to 14.5% the opposite parties reversed the EMI to the previous amount of Rs. 5200/- restructuring payment tenure to 141 months.  The opposite parties have not committed deficiency in service, they forcefully contend.  Bearing in mind the contentions of both the parties, we made meticulous scrutiny of the materials available on record before us.  Concededly the complainant availed loan from the opposite parties. It is also revealed that the rate of interest as to the material loan was raised at different point of time.  However on a perusal of the materials the opposite parties placed  on record particularly Ext.B2 it does appear that an agreement was executed  by the complainant enabling the opposite party either to revive the rate of  interest or reschedule the payment structure in time  with fluctuation in the rate of interest.   In view of this aspect, the contentions raised by the complainant do not inspire confidence in the mind of this Forum. When the circumstances stand thus looking into the materials available before us on record. We are of the considered view that no reliance can be safely placed on  the complainant’s story so projected. Thus on a perusal of the said materials coming out on record, and an analysis of the particular premise of the instant  case, we are persuaded to arrive on the conclusion that the complainant is disentitled to any relief sought for.  Needless to say the complaint must fail.

6. in the light of what have been elaborated hereinabove, we hold that the complaint stands dismissed.

The complaint is disposed of accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day  of December, 2017.

Sd/-Sri. Antony  Xavier (Member)     

Sd/-Smt.Elizabeth George (President)

Sd/-Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)            

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:-

 

Ext.A1 - Intimation leter dtd. 30/4/2011

Ext.A2 - Letter 

Ext.A3 - Bank statement

Evidence of the opposite parties:-  

Ext.B1 - Sanction letter

Ext.B2 - Home Loan Agreement

Ext.B3 - Letter from Salim Babu.P.K

Ext.B4 - Intimation Letter

Ext.B5 - Statement of Account

 

  // True Copy //                               

 

 By Order                                                                                                   

 

Senior Superintendent

To

         Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.

 

Typed by:- br/-  

Compared by:-