DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 41/2015
Date of Institution : 20.02.2015
Date of Decision : 12.08.2015
1. Sanjay Kumar son of Sh. Moti Lal son of Sh. Sarup Chand. 2. Moti Lal son of Sh. Sarup Chand. 3. Kamla Devi wife of Sh. Moti Lal residents of Kothi No. 21, Green Avenue, Barnala, District Barnala.
…Complainants
Versus
Punjab National Bank Branch Dhanaula through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Varinder Kumar Goyal counsel for the complainants.
Sh. A.K. Jindal counsel for the opposite party.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainants namely Sanjay Kumar and others have filed the complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act) against Punjab National Bank Branch Dhanaula (hereinafter called as opposite party).
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainants applied for a house loan with the opposite party and they agreed to advance a house loan. Complainants completed all the formalities and executed documents including some blank forms with signatures in favour of the opposite party. It is further pleaded that the complainants even paying monthly amount as agreed regularly vide house loan account No. NC 504. In the month of September 2014 complainants got a copy of their loan account statement and checked the same and found that the opposite party charged an excess amount of Rs. 61,184/- as interest and this amount was debited in their loan account. Upon this, the complainants visited the opposite party and asked from the Manager and Bank officials regarding the excess interest. But they told that the interest had been charged as per instructions of the higher officials. Thereafter, the complainants obtained the copy of loan agreement and as per Para No. IV (2B) the rate was mentioned as 8.55 per annum with monthly rest. Then the complainants submitted an application to the Branch Manager with the request to refund the excess interest on 30.10.2014. But the opposite party assured the complainants that they would refund the said interest within a short period after talking with the higher officials. Thereafter, the complainants made repeated requests to settle the matter and to refund the said excess interest since 30.10.2014 but in vain. Ultimately on 5.2.2015 the opposite party refused to refund the above said amount. Thus, it is alleged that the act of the opposite party falls under the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.
To refund Rs. 61,184/- alongwith interest charges as excess interest.
To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party appeared and filed written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of locus-standi or cause of action, jurisdiction, flagrant abuse of process of law, not impleaded the head office as necessary party and the complainants are not consumers. On merits, the opposite party admitted that they sanctioned the house loan to the complainants after completion of all the formalities. The loan documents duly executed by the complainants in favour of the opposite party duly filled by the officials of the Bank and after filled the same, read over and explained to the complainants and after admitting the same as correct, the complainants put their respective signatures upon the said documents. It is further submitted that the opposite party charged the rate of interest as agreed by the complainants vide agreement for housing loan executed on 8.12.2010. It is also submitted that at the time of advancement of loan, the interest was applicable as 8.5% per annum with monthly rests. However, the complainants further agreed vide this agreement that if any change/revision in interest rate to be charged in the account, then the complainants were liable to pay the increased interest. Accordingly, the opposite party increased the rate of interest in the house loan from 8.5% to 10.25% per annum w.e.f. 9.2.2013 and the system of the Bank automatically applied the increased rate of interest in the loan account of the complainants. It is further submitted that the officials of the Bank duly informed to the complainants regarding the increase of base rate of interest in the house loan even in writing vide registered letter dated 18.2.2014. It is further submitted that the opposite party Bank has right to charge floating rate of interest from the complainants as agreed by them.
4. It is further submitted that the complainants lodged a written complaint with the opposite party. But the employees never assured nor they are in capacity to reduce or refund any amount to the complainants without prior permission of the higher officials of the opposite party Bank. The complaint of the complainants was referred to the higher officials of the Bank. But the higher officials referred the circular No. 48/2014 that the present change in the rate of interest in the housing loan is the Bank policy and the base rate is changed from 8.5% to 10.25% per annum w.e.f. 9.2.2013 in the housing loans. Thus, the officials of the opposite party Bank acted as per rules/policies of the Bank as applicable from time to time. It is further submitted that the opposite party informed the complainants regarding the change of interest rate vide registered letter dated 18.2.2014, whereas the complainants filed the present complaint in the month of February 2015 after a lapse of one year. However, they have denied the other allegations of the complainants and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. In order to prove their case the complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of Sanjay Kumar Ex.C-1, copy of agreement Ex.C-2, copy of letter dated 30.10.2014 Ex.C-3, copy of letter dated 29.9.2014 Ex.C-4, copy of statement Ex.C-5, copy of envelop Ex.C-6, copy of letter Ex.C-7 and copy of letter received through Ex.C-6 as Ex.C-8 and closed their evidence.
6. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Balvinder Singh Ex.O.P1, copy of power of attorney Ex.O.P2, copy of circular No. 48 Ex.O.P3, copy of agreement Ex.O.P4 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the file carefully.
8. The main controversy in this case is whether the opposite party Bank is competent to charge interest @ 10.25% per annum w.e.f. 9.2.2013 on the house loan from the complainants. There is no dispute that the complainants obtained a house loan from the opposite party and executed agreement for house loan Ex.O.P4 containing the terms and conditions. This agreement was executed on 8.11.2010 and has been signed by both the parties. There is no dispute that at the time of advancement of the loan the interest was applicable as 8.5% per annum with monthly rests. The Bank continued to charge the above said rate till 8.2.2013. However, on 9.2.2013 the Bank started charging the interest @ 10.25% per annum.
9. As both the parties have executed house loan agreement Ex.O.P4, therefore both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is relevant to refer the following clauses of the above said agreement:-
2(B) The borrower/s exercise/s the “floating interest rate/fixed interest rate” option and agree/s to pay interest at the rate and rest as prescribed by the Bank. The rate and rest as on date of this agreement is 8.5% p.a. with monthly rest. The interest shall be calculated on the daily balance due to the Bank in the Housing loan account and shall be charged monthly/quarterly so long as the amount due from the borrower/s is not paid in its entirely and the same will form part of the principal and carry interest it the above mentioned rates.
2(C) The borrower/s agree/s to pay costs and expenses incurred by the Bank.
2(D) The borrower/s also agree/s to pay interest tax, if any, at the rates as in force from time to time. The Bank shall have the discretion to decide the manner of computation of interest tax and charging thereof in the account.
3(a)(i) The borrower/s agree/s that the amount of loan/advance together with interest will be paid by the borrower/s regularly in equated monthly installments of Rs. 24,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Only). The payment of first monthly installment shall fall due on May 2012.
(ii) If there is change/revision in interest rate to be charged in the account, the repayment period may be got prolonged or shortened depending upon the effect of change in interest rates vis a vis the amount of installment, unless repayment is rescheduled by supplementary agreement.
10. Apart from the ibid agreement it is relevant to refer the circular No.48/2014 Ex.O.P3 issued on April 23 2014 to all the offices of the Bank. Clause 4 of the said Circular reads as :-
“Applicable Base Rate of the Bank is 10.25% p.a. with effect from 9.2.2013”.
It further shows the interest rates on advance as:-
BASE RATE OF PNB
Effective Period
Sr. No. W.E.F TO Base Rate in % L&A Cir No.
1. 1.7.2010 30.9.2010 8.00 64/10
2. 1.10.2010 12.12.2010 8.50 109/10
3. 13.12.2010 31.1.2011 9.00 128/10
4. 1.2.2011 4.5.2011 9.50 11/11
5. 5.5.2011 31.7.2011 10.00 40/11
6. 1.8.2011 30.4.2012 10.75 87/11
7. 1.5.2012 8.2.2013 10.50 27/12
8. 9.2.2013 Till date 10.25
11. Perusal of the agreement of house loan Ex.O.P4 shows that the complainants have not given any option for any fixed rate of interest. Moreover, there is no document on record to indicate that the complainants have given option to charge fixed rate of interest at the time of advancement or thereafter as per the terms of the agreement. Affidavit placed on record by the complainant No. 1 Ex.C-1 does not contain any plea that the complainants had opted for fixed rate of interest.
12. In the absence of any such evidence in support of the fixed rate of interest this Forum cannot discard the agreement as well as the circular placed on the file by the opposite party. Moreover, in citation reported in 2015(2) CLT Punjab National Bank Vs Bhagwati Saran Gupta (National Commission) the question was whether the complainant was entitled to more interest than the one mentioned in the circular. In fact at the time of renewal of FDR rate of interest payable as per circular issued by the RBI was 8.5% p.a. and not 11.5% p.a. Plea of opposite party that the rate of interest mentioned in the said FDR was erroneously written. The Hon'ble National Commission held 'No' and the complaint was dismissed.
13. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 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:
12th Day of August 2015
(S.K. Goel)
President.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member.
