Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/137/2021

Smt.Vijaya Mookim & another - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank Represented By its Senior Manager - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.R.N.Amarnath

10 Nov 2023

ORDER

Complaint presented on  :29.10.2021    Date of disposal            :10.11.2023

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. G.VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.                            : PRESIDENT

                    TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN,M.E.,                : MEMBER-1

                               THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A.B.L., PGDLA       : MEMBER II

 

C.C. No.137/2021

 

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 10th  DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023

 

 

1.Smt.Vijaya Mookim,

B7, 2^nd Avenue 3^rd Floor,

Anna Nagar East,

Chennai-600 102.

 

2.Sri Shyam Sunder Mookim,

B7, 2^nd Avenue 3^rd Floor,

Anna Nagar East,

Chennai-600 102.                                                     .. Complainants.                            

..Vs..

 

1.Punjab National Bank

rep by its senior manager,

64/A, No.2 Subbaray Avenue,

C.P.Ramasamy Iyer Road,

Abiramapuram, Chennai-600 018

 

2.The Branch Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

No.748,T.H.Road Washermanpet,

Chennai-600 021                                                       ..  Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for the complainant                      : M/s. R.N.Amarnath and others

Counsel for   opposite parties                   : Exparte

 

ORDER

THIRU. V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA, MEMBER

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prays to directing the Opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs.8,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 18%p.a from 10.01.2022 till the date of realization. The opposite parties to return the title deeds relating to the property owned by the 1^st complainant in Flat No.B-7 second avenue, 3^rd floor, Anna Nagar East chennai-102 as mentioned in the Schedule A to the memorandum of title deeds and the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the 1^st complainant and Rs.3,00,000/- to the 2^nd complainant.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

The complainants submit that they had applied for housing loan for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the 1^st opposite party and they had sanctioned a loan of Rs.23,70,000/- by a letter dated 28.11.2006 and the same was accepted by the complainants by signing the terms and conditions.  As per the terms and conditions of loan the complainants have to repay the loan in 168 instalments at the rate of Rs.24,860/- per month with a floating rate of interest @ 9% P.A.  The said rate of interest is also subjected to any changes as advised by the Head Office from time to time.  An option was also given to complainants for switching between floating rate and fixed rate after 3 years.  The complainants submits that first complainant had deposited the title deeds of her property bearing Flat No.B7/15, 3^rd. Floor, No.102, Door No.B-7, Second Avenue, Anna Nagar East, Chennai-600 102 as security for the repayment of loan amount.  The complainants at the time of availing loan gave 24 post-dated cheques each for a sum of Rs.24,860/- towards repayment of EMIs and subsequently regularly issued post-dated cheques for further instalments.  The last post-dated cheque was used on 15.06.2020 and thus the complainants had paid 162 instalments.  The complainants further submits that on 25.03.2014 a sum of Rs.1,45,258/- being in the complainants Fixed Deposit was transferred to loan account and thus the entire interest has to be proportionately reduced.  By this the complainants paid the entire amount covering all the EMIs and there are no dues to the bank.  The complainants submit that on 15.06.2020 the bank gave a statement showing an outstanding amount of Rs.6,85,831/- stating that interest rate was modified by Reserve Bank of India from time to time and the complainants have to pay the revised rate of interest.  The complainants submits that the complainants objected to the same and informed the bank officials that they cannot be compelled to pay such an exorbitant interest.  The complainants further states that as per RBI guidelines, if there is any revision in the rate of interest, the lender bank should give its customers notice of change in terms and conditions including rate of interest, service charges but the opposite parties did not inform any revision of interest and revised the EMIs accordingly.  The complainants further submit that even during frequent visits to opposite party for giving post-dated cheques, the opposite parties never informed the revision of interest or rescheduling instalments.  The complainants further submit that when the complainants through letters dated 20.08.2020, 19.02.2021, 14.10.2021 and 25.03.2021 sought for the details of EMIs paid including the credit of Fixed Deposit amount and requested to close the loan account but there was no response from the opposite parties.  In the absence of any response from the opposite parties the complainants made complaint to Reserve Bank of India and RBI in its reply dated 16.12.2020 informed the complainants to approach consumer forum or any other legal authority for redressal of grievances.  The complainants further submit that complainants had received letters dated 03.08.2021 and 04.10.2021 from opposite parties demanding Rs.7,59,895/- which was due as on 03.08.2021 and when the complainants sent a notice on 31.08.2021 through their counsel seeking closure of loan and return documents there was no response from opposite parties.  The complainants further submit that a notice dated 10.11.2021 received by the complainants under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act 2002 demanding a sum of Rs.7,59,895/- to be paid within 60 days failing which the property will be brought for public action.  The complainants submit that a letter dated 08.01.2022 was sent through counsel for depositing Rs.7,59,895/- to opposite parties and when approaching the bank for payment the opposite parties insisted a sum of Rs.8,20,000/- to pay and the same was paid by the complainants vide cheque No.000115 dated 10.01.2022 with protest.  The complainants alleged that even after payment of Rs.8,20,000/- under protest the opposite parties refused to release the documents deposited with opposite parties as security.  The complainants further alleged that opposite parties are not entitled to keep the original documents of complainants after receipt of money and the acts of the opposite parties are highly arbitrary, against the guidelines of RBI and amounts to unethical trade practice which caused mental agony and therefore the complainants claims Rs.3 Lakhs each as compensation besides refund of Rs.8,20,000/-, return of title deeds and cost of complaint.  Hence this complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

Notice served to opposite parties.  In spite of receipt of notice the opposite parties never responded and hence set ex-parte.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs prayed in the complaint. If, so to what extent?

The complainants had filed proof affidavit, written arguments and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A28 were marked on the side.The opposite parties remind exparte.

4. Point No.1:-

The complainants alleged that they had applied for housing loan for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the 1^st opposite party and 1^st opposite party had sanctioned a loan of Rs.23,70,000/- by a letter dated 28.11.2006 and the same was accepted by the complainants by signing the terms and conditions and according to terms and conditions the complainants have to repay the loan in 168 instalments at the rate of Rs.24,860/- per month with a floating rate of interest @ 9% P.A.  The rate of interest is subjected to any changes and an option was given by the opposite parties for switching over between floating rate and fixed rate after 3 years.  The first complainant had deposited the title deeds of her property as security for the repayment of loan amount.  The complainants at the time of availing loan gave 24 post-dated cheques each for a sum of Rs.24,860/- towards repayment of EMIs and subsequently regularly issued post-dated cheques for further instalments.  The last post-dated cheque was used on 15.06.2020 and thus the complainants had paid 162 instalments.  In between on 25.03.2014 a sum of Rs.1,45,258/- which was in the complainants Fixed Deposit was transferred to loan account in order to ease the debt and thus the complainants had repaid entire loan amount and there was no dues to bank.  The complainants alleged that on 15.06.2020 the bank gave a statement showing an outstanding amount of Rs.6,85,831/- stating that interest rate was modified by Reserve Bank of India from time to time and the complainants have to pay the revised rate of interest.  The complainants objected and informed that they cannot be compelled to pay such an exorbitant interest.  The complainants alleged that as per RBI guidelines, if there is any revision in the rate of interest, the lender bank should give its customers notice of change in terms and conditions including rate of interest, service charges but the opposite parties never change of interest and rescheduling instalments.  The complainants further alleged that even when the complainants frequent visit to opposite party for giving post-dated cheques, the opposite parties never informed the revision of interest or rescheduling instalments.  The complainants further alleged that when the complainants on various occasions sought for the details of EMIs paid including the credit of Fixed Deposit there was no response from the opposite parties.  When the matter was brought to the knowledge of Reserve Bank of India by the complainants, RBI informed the complainants to approach consumer forum or any other legal authority for redressal of grievances.  The complainants further alleged that opposite parties had sent a letter dated 03.08.2021 demanding Rs.7,59,895/- which was due as on 03.08.2021 and when the complainants sent a notice through their counsel seeking closure of loan and return documents but there was no response from opposite parties.  The complainants further alleged that opposite parties had served a notice dated 10.11.2021to complainants under section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act 2002 demanding a sum of Rs.7,59,895/- within 60 days failing which the property will be brought for public action.  The complainants alleged that when complainants sent a letter dated 08.01.2022 through counsel for depositing Rs.7,59,895/- and when approaching the bank for payment the opposite parties insisted a sum of Rs.8,20,000/- to pay and the same was paid by the complainants vide cheque No.000115 dated 10.01.2022 with protest.  The complainants alleged that even after payment of Rs.8,20,000/- under protest the opposite parties refused to release the documents deposited with opposite parties as security.  The complainants further alleged that opposite parties are not entitled to keep the original documents of complainants after receipt of money and the acts of the opposite parties are highly arbitrary, against the guidelines of RBI and amounts to unethical trade practice.

In the absence of appearance of opposite parties who were set ex-parte, we have perused the averments and documents submitted by the complainants.   Oral submissions of learned counsel for complainants also heard.  On perusal of Ex.A1, it is observed that opposite parties had sanctioned a loan of Rs.23.70 lacs against the requested amount of Rs.25 lakhs with a request to return the duplicate copy of sanction letter as a token of acceptance by the complainants.  It is also observed that loan amount was repayable in 168 instalments at the rate of Rs.24,860/- per EMI and the rate of interest 9% p.a. floating with an option to switch between floating and fixed rate of interest and vice versa after 3 years.  It is observed that valid equitable mortgage should be created and memorandum of deposit of title deeds should be duly registered at complainants cost.  The complainants had submitted the title deeds to the opposite parties and the same was acknowledged by the opposite parties on 08.03.2007 as evidenced in Ex.A2.  The memorandum of title deeds was registered on 28^th March 2007 as evidenced from Ex.A3.  The complainants contended that at regular intervals they had deposited post-dated cheques to opposite parties and the same is observed from Ex.A13 to A17.  The complainants contended that on 25.03.2014, the complainant had transferred a sum of Rs.1,45,258/- from Fixed Deposit but no material evidence was submitted by complainants. At the same time the complainants had asked for the details of loan statement including transfer of Fixed Deposit to loan account on 20.08.2020 and 14.10.2020 which are marked as Ex.5 and Ex.6.  but the opposite parties failed to respond for the same.  The complainants claimed that they had paid the last instalment of loan on 15.06.2020 as per bank statement marked as Ex.A4.  It is observed from averments that complainants had claimed that they had paid 162 instalmentsbesides transfer of Fixed Deposit amount of Rs.1,45,258/-and hence there is no outstanding of loan. It is observed from Ex.A6 and Ex.A10, that complainants requested the opposite parties to close the loan account and return the documents.  The complainants averred that opposite party gave a statement on 15.06.2020 showing a sum of Rs.6,85,831/- as outstanding loan but no proof of document was filed by complainant.  The complainants claimed that they had paid all the EMIs and there is no due to the bank.  It is observed from Ex.A14, that complainants made a complaint to Reserve Bank of India and the Ombudsman of Reserve Bank of India in its reply dated 7^th April 2021 marked as Ex.A11 rejecting the complaint.  It is observed from the reply of Ombudsman that opposite parties had stated that “there was upward revision of Rate of Interest during the repayment period and as the EMI was constant, the outstanding loan amount did not reduce as specified at the time of sanction”. It is observed from Ex.A12, the opposite parties had sent a notice on 03.08.2021 claiming an amount of Rs.7,59,895/- as outstanding loan as on 03.08.2021 and the account is irregular and if the amount is not paid immediately legal steps will be taken.  In reply to this the complainants had sent a reply letter on 13.08.2021 marked as Ex.A18, seeking the details of loan and also the date from which the account became irregular.  A legal notice through counsel was also sent by complainants on 30.08.2021 to opposite parties to close the loan account which is marked as Ex.A19.  It is further observed from Ex.A21, the opposite party again sent a notice dated 04.10.2021 to make payment of Rs.7,59,895/- within 7 days with further interest.  It is observed from Ex.A22, when the notice was issued by the opposite party, the complainants were not in station and only their representative had replied to opposite parties stating that the complainants were out of station and the matter was conveyed to them.  The opposite parties again on 10.11.2021 had issued notice to complainants under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 declaring the account as non-performing asset on 31.08.2021 due to non-payment of Rs.7,59,895/- as per Reserve Bank of India Guidelines and asked the complainants to pay Rs.7,59,895/- with further interest at the contracted rate until payment in full within 60 days from the date of notice as observed from Ex.24.  In reply to this notice the complainants through their counsel wrote a letter dated 06.12.2021 which is marked as Ex.25, wherein it is stated that complainants had filed a consumer complaint in District Commission and they are willing to pay the outstanding loan of Rs.7,59,895/- with interest without prejudice to complainants right to recover the same and sought a reply from opposite parties.  In the absence of any response from opposite parties the counsel for complainants again sent a letter to opposite parties on 08.01.2022 seeking exact amount to be paid and had paid a sum of Rs.8,20,000/- vide Cheque No.000115 dated 10.01.2022 and the receipt of the same was acknowledged by the opposite parties as evidenced inEx.A26.  It is observed from Ex.A27, that complainants had sent a letter to opposite party seeking statement of housing loan account but the opposite parties had issued No Dues Certificate dated 05.09.2023 but have not issued any loan statement.  The complainant alleged that even after receipt of alleged dues from the complainants, the opposite parties till date refused to return the title deeds of property belongs to 1^stcomplainant which was submitted to opposite parties as security for loan.

From the above facts, it is noticed that complainants had followed all the due procedures required for obtaining loan and after obtaining the loan regularly paid the EMIs and according to their calculation the loan was completed on payment of last EMI on 15.06.2020.  Whereas the opposite parties had sent notices to complainants on various occasions i.e.on 03.08.2021, 04.10.2021 and finally issued notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act 2002 threatening the complainants that in the absence of payment of outstanding loan the property will be put for public action.  Apprehending the public action, the complainants had paid a sum of Rs.8,20,000/- and closed the loan.  As alleged by the complainants, the opposite parties in the entire loan period never informed the complainants about the revision of rate of interest, rescheduling the loan term and loan statement.  The complainants were totally kept in dark.  In fact, the complainants on many occasions directly, through letters and also through legal notices have asked for the loan account details, transfer of Fixed Deposit to loan account and date of irregularity of loan account but the opposite parties never responded.  It is observed that only from the reply given by RBI Ombudsmen, the complainants came to know about the upward revision of rate of interest and rescheduling the loan term.  It is observed from the Ex.A13 to A17 only in the acknowledgements for receipt of post-dated cheques, the opposite parties had written the balance outstanding loan which is insufficient to understand the loan account details.  There was no formal communication from the opposite parties and without their knowledge the rescheduling the loan term was decided by the opposite parties.  Had the opposite parties informed the complainants about the rate of revision of interest as and when, the complainants would have taken a decision to increase the EMI amount or extending the term or shifting of interest from floating to fixed.  Thus the actions of the opposite parties deprived the right of the complainants in taking suitable decision even though there are provisions in the terms and conditions of loan as seen in Ex.A1.  It is observed from Ex.A23 the RBI guidelines on Fair Practices Code for Lenders DBOD.Leg.No.BC.104/09.07.007/2002-03 dated 05.05.2003 Clause 2(iii) Disbursement of loans including changes in terms and conditions “Lenders should ensure timely disbursement of loans sanctioned in conformity with the terms and conditions governing such sanction.  Lenders should give notice of any change in the terms and conditions including interest rates, service charges etc.  Lenders should also ensure that changes in interest rates and charges are effected only prospectively”.  Whereas in this instant complaint the opposite parties never sent any notice to complainants regarding revision of interest.  But when a complaint was lodged by complainants with RBI Ombudsmen the opposite parties promptly  sharedthe information of upward revision of interest to RBI Ombudsmen  which shows the indifferent attitude of the opposite parties towards borrowers and unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties.  Further the opposite parties are very particular in sending the notices on various occasions to collect the outstanding loan without any details and further threatened the complainants by issuing the notice u/s 13(2) SARFAESI Act 2002 without fulfilling their obligations.  It is further noticed that final payment of Rs.8,20,000/- as demanded by the opposite parties was paid by the complainants but the opposite party issued No Due Certificate only after a request was made by the complainant as evidenced in Ex.A27 and A28.  The complainants alleged that till date the original title deeds were not given back to the complainants.  RBI guidelines on Fair Practices Code for Lenders DBOD.Leg.No.BC.104/09.07.007/2002-03 dated 05.05.2003 marked as Ex.A23, “Clause 2(iv) Post Disbursement supervision (c) Lenders should release all securities on receiving payment of loan or realisation of loan subject to any legitimate right or lien for any other claim lenders may have against borrowers.  If such right is set off is to be exercised, borrowers shall be given notice about the same with full particulars about the remaining claims and the documents under which lenders are entitled to retain the securities till the relevant claim is settled/paid.”  In this complaint the complainants had settled the entire loan amount including the alleged outstanding amount as demanded by the opposite parties on 10.11.2021 itself but the opposite parties failed to return the title deed still date which was given as security for the loan account.  It is pertinent to note that opposite parties faithfully followed the RBI guidelines while issuing notices including notice u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act 2002 for realization of outstanding loan when it need for their favour but have failed to follow the same RBI guidelines when it is favouring complainants.   Thus, the above acts of opposite parties show negative and lethargic attitude in discharging their rightful duties towards borrowers which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

Based on the above observations and in the absence of the contra views of the opposite parties, we are of the considered opinion that opposite parties failed to issue notice whenever revision of rate of interest took place, failed to provide the loan account details to complainants and failed to handover the title deeds to complainants even after receipt of entire loan amount.  The above acts of the opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and therefore the complainants are entitled for the claims prayed in the complaint.   Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

Point No.2:

         

Based on the findings given to PointNo.1,unfair trade practice and deficiency in service is observed on the part of opposite parties and therefore the complainants are entitled for the claims made in the complaint.  Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

           In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite parties jointly or severally are directed to refund Rs.8,20,000/- with 9% interest from 10.01.2022 to till the date of realization to complainants, Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for 1^st complainant, Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for 2^nd complainant and Rs.5,000/- towards of cost of complaint.  Further the opposite parties are directed to return the title deeds of the property owned by the 1^st complainant immediately on receipt of the copy of this order.    The above amount shall be paid to the Complainants within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by Member II to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 10^th day of November 2023.

 

MEMBER I                                  MEMBER – II                           PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	28.11.2006	Loan sanctioned letter with annexure
Ex.A2	08.03.2007	Acknowledgement
Ex.A3	28.03.2007
Ex.A4	29.06.2021	Bank Statement of the complainant for the period of 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021
Ex.A5	20.08.2020	Letter seeking closure of the loan account
Ex.A6	14.10.2020	Letter seeking closure of the loan account
Ex.A7	16.12.2020	Letter seeking closure of the loan account
Ex.A8	05.01.2021	Acknowledgement received by RBI
Ex.A9	19.02.2021	Letter seeking closure of the loan account
Ex.A10 Ex.A11	25.03.2021   07.04.2021	Letter seeking closure of  the loan account   Letter from office of banking Ombudsman RBI
Ex.A12	03.08.2021	Letter seeking a sum of Rs.7,59,895/-
Ex.A13	13.01.2020	Delivery of Cheque
Ex.A14	31.07.2019	Delivery of Cheque
Ex.A15	02.02.2019	Delivery of Cheque
Ex.A16	01.02.2018	Delivery of Cheque
Ex.A17	17.04.2017	Delivery of Cheque
Ex.A18	13.08.2021	Letter
Ex.A19	30.08.2021	Letter seeking to close the loan account and to return the documents
Ex.A20	31.08.2021	Proof of delivery issued by the postal department
Ex.A21	04.10.2021	Letter
Ex.A22	10.10.2021	Letter seeking time to give reply
Ex.A23	05.05.2003	Guidelines issued by RBI
Ex.A24	10.11.2021	Notice issued by the Respondent Bank
Ex.A25	06.12.2021	Letter from Counsel for Complainant to the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A26	08.01.2022	Letter from the counsel for the complainant for the complainants to the opposite party
Ex.A27	05.09.2023	Letter sent by the complainant
Ex.A28	05.09.2023	No due certificate issued by the opposite party

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

 

No documents

 

 

MEMER – I                           MEMBER – II                       PRESIDENT