DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 28/2015
Date of Institution : 20.01.2015
Date of Decision : 13.08.2015
Grafdeep Kaur daughter of Rachhpal Singh son of Ajaib Singh, resident of Near Bhatti Brothers Filling Station, Tapa, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
Punjab National Bank Branch Pakho Kalan, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala through its Manager.
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. RS Mehta counsel for the complainant.
Sh. AK Jindal counsel for opposite party.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(MS. VANDANA SIDHU MEMBER):
Grafdeep Kaur daughter of Rachhpal Singh has filed the present complaint No. 28/2015 under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite party.
2. Complainant Grafdeep Kaur applied for education loan for doing study in Canada and for this purpose she executed equitable mortgage of property with opposite party. The value of property is about 22 lacs on that time by my father. The opposite party sanctioned a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- for education loan and rate of interest was fixed 11.25% per annum. The amount is payable in 84 easy monthly installments after one year completion of course or 6 months after getting job. Opposite party gave first installment of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 7.6.2010 and second installment of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 4.11.2010 and the third installment of loan was paid by the opposite party on 17.8.2011 of Rs. 2,95,000/-. Last installment of loan for Rs. 3,03,000/- was paid on 30.11.2011. So, by this way opposite party gave loan for an amount of Rs. 9,50,122/- which is shown in the passbook account No. 480900, 010007227 which is in the name of the complainant and her father. So, the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party having customer No. HCY001121. Now the opposite party has changed the rate of interest from 11.25% to 14.25% without informing the complainant. The opposite party had not sent any letter or called the applicant on her cell phone. Opposite party had not executed any agreement from the complainant for the change of interest from 11.25% to 14.25% which is a unfair trading because opposite party could not change the rate of interest bilaterally.
Relief:
The opposite party is directed to.-
1) To change interest rate from 14.25% to 11.25%.
2) To pay Rs. 8,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
Jurisdiction.-
The office of the opposite party is situated at Pakho Kalan, that is why this Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint.
3. Upon notice the opposite party filed version taking legal objections interalia on the ground that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. The present complaint is frivolous and vexatious. The present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute involve in the complaint in as much as it is not a consumer dispute and does not fall within the ambit of provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The proceedings initiated by complainant under the Act are nonest, null and void and without jurisdiction and further the present complaint is manifestly outside the purview of the said Act. The present complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law. The present complaint has not been verified according to law. Complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party bank as the complainant failed to implead the head office of the opposite party bank as party in the present complaint being a necessary party. Present complaint is filed just to harass the opposite party. On facts, the complainant and her father executed various loan documents in favour of the opposite party bank to get the loan from the opposite party and the complainant also executed an agreement of education loan in favour of opposite party bank on 5.6.2010 which is duly signed by the complainant and her father. The said agreement was read over and explained to the complainant and her father during the time of execution by the officials of the opposite party bank and the complainant and her father Rachhpal Singh after admitted the same as correct put their respective signatures on the said agreement for education loan. As per this agreement in para No. 5 of the said agreement clearly mentioned that “the interest on the loan will be payable at the BPLR/EDE 15% below over the Banks BPLR with rest. Provided that the interest payable by the borrowers shall be subject to change in the interest rate made by RBI Bank from time to time.” In reply it is submitted that as agreed by the complainant and her father the opposite party bank changed the base rate of interest from 11.25% to 14.25% and the officials of the opposite party bank has been changed increase rate of interest i.e. 14.25% from the date of its increase. As per para No. 5 of the agreement the bank has right to charge the increase rate of interest which is applicable on education loan from time to time and the same is informed to the complainant and her father by the opposite party bank. The opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove her case the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, affidavit of Rachhpal Singh Ex.C-2, copy of education loan sanction letter Ex.C-3, copy of agreement for education loan Ex.C-4, copy of passbook Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.
5. In order to rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Lovekesh Kumar Uppal Ex.OP-1, copy of general power of attorney Ex.OP-2, copy of agreement for education loan Ex.OP-3 and Ex.OP-4 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through all the record minutely on the file.
7. As per Ex.C-3 which is tendered by complainant it is clearly mentioned in the subject matter under title sanction of education loan of Rs. 10 lacs for higher studies abroad. Total expenditure is Rs. 19,34,300/- and in column of repayment the interest plus principal amount has to be paid in 84 EMIs commencing one year after the course completion or 6 months after getting a job which ever is earlier or howsoever the case may be and in Ex.C-4/Ex.OP-3 i.e. also part of agreement for education loan. After considering the evidence on record this Forum perused that complainant falls under Section 2 (d) (1) of Consumer Protection Act because she took education loan from opposite party but in lieu of that she was paying interest as per Ex.C-3 i.e rate of interest 11.25%. Moreover she took this loan for higher studies in abroad with the permission of his father to make her future bright. Now it is a shockable information for complainant and her father to pay excess rate of interest. And it is pertinent to mention here that nothing is on record i.e. Ex.OP-3 which is tendered by opposite party where rate of interest is specifically mentioned 14.25%. Even apart from agreement for education loan Ex.OP-3 the opposite party has not placed on record any circular/document to show that the rate of interest has been changed from 11.25% per annum to 14.25% per annum. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent evidence in favour of the enhancement of the rate of interest to 14.25% per annum from 11.25% per annum the plea of the opposite party cannot be accepted.
8. In view of the above discussion in our view there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to charge the rate of interest 11.25% instead of 14.25% from the complainant. There is no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
13th Day of August 2015
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandana Sidhu)
Member
