BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.83/2017.
Date of instt.: 27.3.2017.
Date of Decision:08.01.2018.
Vinod Sharma s/o Shri Tek Chand, aged about 50 years, r/o Sector-19, Part-1, Urban Estate, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
Oriental Bank of Commerce, Main Branch, Ambala Road, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.
..……..Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present: Shri R.D. Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Sudeep Malik, Advocate for the OP.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he availed a loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from OP on 11.10.2007 and the said loan was returnable to OP in 180 monthly installments. It is further alleged that it was settled between him with OP that floatering interest is to be paid as per instructions of RBI applicable at relevant time. It is further alleged that when the rate of interest was increased by RBI for home loans, the OP itself increased the same and re-scheduled the loan account as per the said instructions, however, when the rate of interest of home loans was reduced by RBI, the OP failed to re-schedule the loan account, according to the instructions. It is further alleged that the RBI reduced the rate of interest of home loans several times and every time, he made the written request to OP for re-scheduling the loan, but the OP failed to do the needful. It is further alleged that in the month of February 2016, the OP got deposited Rs.2611/- from him on account of fee for re-scheduling the loan account, but now the OP is putting the matter on one pretext or other. It is further alleged that he issued a legal notice dt. 31.1.2017 through his counsel to Op for re-scheduling the loan account, but the Op did not pay any heed. This way, the Op is deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this Forum and filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; that as per terms & conditions of loan agreement, the rate of interest was to charged in accordance with bank’s prime lending rate which was to be increased and decreased as per bank’s/RBI guidelines; that on receipt of application dt. 01.2.2016 from the complainant for opting interest switch over option, the same was immediately allowed and thereafter, the interest is being charged accordingly; that no question of rescheduling of account is there since the account is running regular; that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred as the complainant himself mentioned the date of final refusal in para no.12 as 06.3.2012; that since the matter in dispute involves complicated question of law and facts which requires volume evidence which is not possible under the summary proceedings. On merits, it is submitted that the rate of interest was to be very from time to time as per terms & conditions of loan agreement as well as instruction of RBI; the present rate of interest is 8.60% P.A.; that an amount of Rs.2611/- was deposited by the complainant as requisite charges not for rescheduling the loan, rather he had exercised the interest switch over option as per Circular dt. 10.5.2012. The rest of the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and closed evidence on 29.8.2017. On the other hand, OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R-1; documents Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-3 and closed evidence on 02.11.2017.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. From the pleadings and documents placed on the file, it is not disputed the complainant availed a loan of Rs.6 lakhs from OP bank on 11.10.2007 having Account No.00456011000544 with 180 monthly installments. It is settled between the parties that the floatering interest is to be paid by the complainant to OP as per the instructions of RBI applicable at relevant time. The dispute between the parties ‘according to the complainant, is that when the rate of interest was increased by RBI for home loans, the OP itself increased the same, but when the rate of interest of home loans was reduced by RBI, the OP failed to re-schedule the loan account, according to the instructions. To rebut the contention of complainant, the OP produced copy of statement of said account bearing No. No.00456011000544 of complainant as Ex.R-2 showing Effective Interest Rate percentage w.e.f. 11.10.2007 till 04.2.2017, which reads as under:-
From date To Date Interest %
11.10.2007 06.11.2008 10.00
07.11.2008 05.8.2010 9.75
06.8.2010 14.12.2010 10.25
15.12.2010 01.2.2011 11.00
02.2.2011 04.5.2011 11.50
05.5.2011 11.7.2011 12.00
12.7.2011 31.7.2011 12.25
01.8.2011 13.5.2012 12.75
14.5.2012 31.1.2016 12.50
01.2.2016 03.2.2017 9.70
04.2.2017 06.6.2017 8.60
6. Perusal of above statement shows that initially the OP bank charged interest rate @10.00%, but thereafter, on 07.11.2008, the OP bank reduced it to 9.75; further increased it to 10.25, 11.00, 11.50, 12.00, 12.25, 12.75, 12.50 till 31.1.2016 and on 01.2.2016 reduced it to 9.70 and lastly on 04.2.2017 again reduced it to 8.60. So, from this report, it is clear that the OP bank has increased & decreased the Effective Interest Rates percentage of said account in question from time to time, as per bank’s/RBI guidelines. So, this contention of the complainant that when the rate of interest was increased by RBI for home loans, the OP itself increased the same, but when the rate of interest of home loans was reduced by RBI, the OP failed to re-schedule the loan account, according to the instructions, has no force, because the OP has increased and decreased the interest rate of complainant’s home loan account from time to time as per bank’s/RBI guidelines.
7. Ld. counsel for the OP has contended that the present complaint is time barred as the complainant himself mentioned the date of final refusal in Para No.12 as 06.3.2012. The limitation for filing the complaint as per provision of Section 24-A is 2 years. This contention of OP has force, because the complainant filed the present complaint on 27.3.2017 and date of final refusal by OP is 06.3.2012 as admitted by the complainant in Para No.12 i.e. after the period of more than 5 years. It is pertinent to mention here that neither the application for condonation of delay nor any explanation regarding the same has been given by the complainant. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we found no deficiency on the part of the OP in providing service to the complainant, because the OP has increased and decreased the interest rate of complainant’s home loan account from time to time. Further, the present complaint is also time-barred.
8. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of limitation. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.08.01.2018.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
Present: Shri R.D. Sharma, Adv. for complainant.
Shri Sudeep Malik, Adv. for the Op.
Remaining arguments not advanced. On joint request, case is adjourned to 08.01.2018 for remaining arguments.
Dated:19.12.2017 Member Presiding Member.
Present: Shri R.D. Sharma, Adv. for complainant.
Shri Sudeep Malik, Adv. for the Op.
Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated:08.01.2018. Member Presiding Member.
