BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.255 of 2017

Date of Instt. 26.07.2017

Date of Decision: 06.05.2019

1. Surjit Singh son of Sh. Chet Singh.

2. Mrs. Bhupinderjit Kaur, wife of Sh. Surjit Singh,

Residents of H. No.10, Friends Colony, Jalandhar.

..........Complainants

Versus

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ladhewali, Near GNDU Regional Campus, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Present: Sh. Anand Pandit, Adv Counsel for the Complainants.

Sh. Tarun Bajaj, Adv Counsel for the OP.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainants, wherein alleged that in the year 2015, the complainants have got Housing Loan for the purchase of plot and for construction of the house from the OP and the OP sanctioned only loan of Rs.16,75,000/- along with interest @ 10.25% floating interest and opened an account bearing account No.16096011000017. The OP sanctioned only Rs.10 lacs for the purchase of plot, whereas the complainants had purchased the plot of about 18 marlas. The complainants on several occasions requested the OP to increase the limit of the said loan, as it is not possible to construct the house with a meagre amount of Rs.8,00,000/-, but the OP had refused to enhance the limit of the housing loan for plot and for construction of the house and due to which the complainants could not start the construction of the said plot. At the time of grant of loan, the OP had claimed that they are giving the housing loan on the lowest rate of interest than the other banks and the complainants opted for the loan from the OP on the assurance of the OP. The OP stated that the interest would be charged as a floating interest of 10.25% as mentioned above, as such, the complainants agreed to take the housing loan from the OP. After confirming from other banks, the complainants came to know that other nationalized banks are giving the home loans on lesser rate of interest, as such, the assurances of the OP were totally false just to entangle the complainants in their trap.

2. That due to non-extending of the limit of the housing loan as requested by the complainants, the complainants could not raise the construction of the property and to utter shock of the complainants, the complainants started charging higher interest from the agreed interest from the complainants. The complainants approached the OP on many occasions for the redressal of their grievances and for getting the clarifications as to why the OP is charging the higher rate of interest which is more than the agreed rate of interest, but the officials of the OP did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of the complainants and kept on putting off the matter for the reason best known to the OP. The OP did not send any intimation or show cause notice to the complainants in this regard that the OP shall charge commercial rate of interest due to non-construction of the house over the property nor the same finds mentioned in the sanction letter issued by the OP, which is totally illegal and void on the face of it. The OP charged the higher rate of interest without intimating the same to the complainants and have started demanding higher amount from the complainants, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Thereafter, the complainants had availed the housing loan from PNB, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar and had deposited a banker's cheque of Rs.9,90,000/- in the loan account of the OP and totally adjusted the entire loan amount and after making the payment with a surplus amount of Rs.6375/- and the complainants requested the OP to return the security documents, vide letter dated 20.07.2016, but the OP did not return the security documents to the complainants rather debited the loan account of the complainants with Rs.55,082/- without any justification, which is totally illegal and arbitrary on the part of the OP and as such, the act and conduct of the OP is tantamount to unfair trade practice as well as deficient in service and then legal notice was served upon the OP, but all in vain and accordingly, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to reimburse the excess amount received from the complainant i.e. Rs.55,082/- and further OP be directed to pay compensation for causing mental agony and harassment, to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared through its counsel and filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law as the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that the complainants approached the OP for credit facility/housing loan for the purchase of plot and for raising construction over the said plot. Later on, answering respondent sanctioned total housing loan of Rs.20,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of sanctioning the term loan to complainant, an agreement of individual housing loan was executed by the complainant, which was signed by him after admitting the correctness of contents of the said document. It is very clearly written in the said case, in case borrower does not complete the construction within a stipulated period, then bank could charge higher rate of interest from him, meaning thereby is that complainant was having knowledge about the terms and conditions of the said loan. So, there was nothing wrong on the part of the OP and there arises no question of intimation in respect of charging higher rate of interest and the same was agreed upon by the complainant himself when he executed the above said loan documents. So, in view of the above, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with special and compensatory cost. It is further averred that the complainant has filed the present complaint only with an ulterior motive to usurp the public money by filing the false and frivolous complaint against the Nationalized Bank. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant obtained a loan for purchasing of plot as well as construction thereon, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-2 Copies of Pass Book, Ex.C-3 Letter dated 04.08.2016, Ex.C-4 Letter dated 20.07.2016, Ex.C-5 Certificate dated 05.07.2016, Ex.C-6 Form of Loan, Ex.C-7 Balance Certificate and Ex.C-8 Letter dated 04.08.2016 and then closed the evidence.

5. Similarly, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith some documents Ex.OP-1 Agreement of Individual Housing Loan and Ex.OP-2 Common Agreement and thereafter, the evidence of the OP closed by order on 23.01.2019.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. Precisely, the case set up by the complainant is only that he availed housing loan facility from the OP for purchase of the plot as well as for construction of the house, the OP sanctioned only loan of Rs.16,75,000/- @ 10.25% floating interest and also opened the account of the complainant and thereafter, the OP only sanctioned a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for the purchase of the plot measuring 18 marlas and thereafter, the complainant make a request for enhancement of the loan facility because the remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/- is not sufficient to construct a house over a plot measuring 18 marlas, but the OP flatly refused to enhance the loan facility limit and thereafter, the complainant deposited the entire remaining amount of Rs.9,90,000/- which includes surplus amount deposited by the complainant i.e. Rs.6375/-, despite that the OP did not return the original security document rather debited an other amount of Rs.55,082/- in the loan account of the complainant illegally and arbitrarily and as such, there is a deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Thereafter, the complainant with a compulsion deposited the said excess amount of Rs.55,082/- and get return the security document and now, the complainant came to get return the said amount along with compensation and litigation expenses.

8. The case of the complainant has been meeted out by the OP simply taking a plea that a loan was sanctioned to the complainant @ 10.25% p.a. interest, but subject to condition that the complainant will construct the house within 24 months and this condition has been incorporated in the agreement, which is duly signed by the complainant and in case the complainant failed to complete the construction within a stipulated period from the date of disbursement of the loan or from the date of possession whichever is earlier and failing which the penal interest @ + 3.50% p. a. shall be also charged from the complainant. In order to give strength this submission, the OP has brought on the file the relevant agreement of individual housing loan Ex.OP-1.

9. Now, we are going to sum up the case of the party by giving a thorough inspection of the document as well as pleading and find that the complainant has produced on the file Copy of Passbook Ex.C-1 and Copy of Statement of Account Ex.C-2 and similarly, the OP has produced on the file certified copy of Statement of Account, which is not exhibited, but for its identification purpose, we marked it as Ex.CX. The OP also brought on the file certified copy of the Sale Deed, which is not exhibited by the OP, but for the reference sake, we marked it as Ex.CY. If, we go through the documents placed on the file by the OP today i.e. Statement of Account Ex.CX and Sale Deed Ex.CY, then we can say that the loan was disbursed to the complainant on 26.02.2015 and sale deed was executed on 02.03.2015. Both the aforesaid dates are very crucial for the disposal of this complaint, being a reason the penal interest will be initiated after 24 months from the date of reimbursement of loan or from the date of possession of the plot whichever is earlier. So, if we see, then we can say that the earlier date is 02.03.2015 the date of possession. It is also admitted that an agreement Ex.OP-1 was executed by the complainant, which bear the signature of the complainant and in that agreement, a clause No.5 is incorporated regarding the stipulated condition as raised by the OP. Now, we have to calculate 24 months from the date of possession i.e. 02.03.2015, it comes to 02.03.2017 and if the complainants miserably failed to raise the construction till 02.03.2017, then the OP has right to charge penal interest i.e. above the agreed rate 10.25% p. a., but in this case, situation is some how different because the complainants deposited the amount prior to the completion of 24 months, this can be glanced from the statement of account produced by the OP Ex.CX, wherein categorically mentioned that the complainant deposited Rs.9,90,000/- on 26.07.2016 and if we see the balance amount towards complainant on that day regarding loan amount, the same is mentioned in the said statement of Rs.9,83,625/-, whereas the complainant has admittedly deposited excess amount Rs.6375/-, when the complainant deposited and cleared the all loan amount, then why and under what condition, the OP has further raised interest as well as penal interest from the complainant, regarding that we can see the entries after 26.07.2016 and ultimately, the complainant has to deposit Rs.50,256/- an excess amount just to get back his security document, the said excess amount has been charged by the OP without any terms and conditions, admittedly the OP can charge penal interest only after completion of 24 months from the date of possession i.e. 02.03.2015, but if we go through the statement of account Ex.CX, then we can say without any hesitation that the OP bank had started charging penal interest from the very beginning, the loan was disbursed on 26.02.2015 and thereafter, immediately the entry of penal interest has been made on 30.03.2015 and even thereafter. So, it is clearly established that the OP has committed a great negligence by charging excess amount from the complainant and as such, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for the relief along with compensation.

10. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP is directed to return the excess amount received from the complainant i.e. Rs.58,082/- and further OP is directed to pay compensation to the complainant for causing mental agony and harassment, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and further OP is directed to also pay litigation expenses of Rs.12,000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh

06.05.2019 Member President