DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII (SW)
[GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI]
FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SHAKAR BHAWAN
SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077
CASE NO. CC/258/21
Date of Institution : 23.08.2021
Order reserved on : 31.03.2023
Date of Order : 12.04.2023
In the matter of:
Smt. Manju Jha,
W/o Sh .Arun Kumar Jha,
R/o Pocket D-7, H.No 16, Sector 6,
Rohini, Delhi -110085.
Sh .Arun Kumar Jha,
S/o Lt. Sh. Radhe Kishna Jha,
R/o Pocket D-7, H.No 16, Sector 6,
Rohini, Delhi -110085 …. Complainants
VERSUS
Punjab National Bank,
(Erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce)
Having corporate Office at:-
Plot No 4, Sector 10,
Dwarka,
New Delhi – 110075
Branch Office at :-
3399, Mahendra Park,
Rani Bagh,
Delhi – 110031 …. Opposite Party
O R D E R
(By SH. SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, PRESIDENT)
- The complainants have filed a complaint under Sections 35 and 38 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations that erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce has been merged with OP. They had taken a loan of Rs 7 lacs from OP vide account no 09426011000753 with fixed rate of interest @ 8% per annum. They were required to pay monthly installment of Rs 6700/- each starting from 01.07.2006 for a period of 15 year. They had demanded loan agreement along with all documents signed by them from the OP but the same were not supplied. They have been regularly paying the monthly installments along with penal interest, if any. They had visited the branch office of the OP after the term period of loan comes to an end but no information was provided to them. They have filed an application dt 26.6.2020 under RTI Act. The reply dated 24.8.2020 of the OP shows that loan agreement is not traceable. A copy of customer account ledger dt 24.8.20 was supplied to them. They were shocked to see that a sum of Rs. 4,45,522/- is still due towards them. A letter dated 29.2.2020 was given to OP to provide the complete record of the loan record. The reply dt 09.10.2020 was given to the effect that the file is not traceable. The rate of interest was charged as 10.5% per annum which is not in sync with loan agreement. The matter was reported to Banking Ombudsmen by filing the Appeal dt 09.02.2021. The OP, after repeated visits, has supplied copy of the loan agreement dt 13.04.2006 along with account summary. There is deficiency in service on the part of OP as OP has charged exorbitant rate of interest. Hence, this complaint.
- The OP has filed a reply to the effect that complaint is not maintainable and liable to dismissed as there is no deficiency in service. The complainant is barred by limitation. The complainants have taken a loan of Rs 7 lacs which was repayable by monthly installment of Rs 6700/- for 15 years starting from 01.07.2006. The rate of interest was floating @ PLR with monthly rest and the PLR was 8% at the time of sanction of loan. The rate of interest was not fixed. The OP has provided all the documents and statement of account to the complainant. The letters dt 24.8.2020, 29.09.2020 and 09.10.2020 were issued by the OP. The letter dt 09.10.20 was issued to the complainants and informed that rate of interest is 10.5 % per annum. The rate of interest is as per terms & conditions of the loan agreement, so there is no deficiency in service.
- The complainants have filed the rejoinder wherein stand taken in the reply is denied and averments made in the complaint are reiterated.
- Both the parties have led the evidence.
- The complainants have filed their own affidavits in evidence wherein they have corroborated the allegations as set out in the complaint and exhibited documents.
- EX CW1/1 is the application dated 26.6.2020 moved by the complainants to Public Information Officer of the OP under RT Act wherein statement of account along with loan agreement was demanded. EX CW1/2 is the reply dt 24.8.2020 given by OP-2 to the complainants that rate of interest as on date is 10.5% per annum as floating rate of interest was opted by the complainants. The copy of statement of account was annexed with the reply. EX CW 1/3 is the letter from the complainants to Branch Manager, OBC to provide complete record pertaining to the loan account. EX CW1/4 is the reply from the OP that record pertaining to the loan file is not traceable. The rate of interest as on date on 10.5% per annum and floating rate of interest was accepted by them at the time of signing the loan agreement and rate of interest has changed from time to time. EX CW1/5 is an appeal/letter written by the complainants to the Banking Ombudsmen against charging of rate of interest at 10.5% per annum instead of 7.7% per annum. EX CW 1/6 is the copy of the loan agreement. All these exhibits are not put on the documents though reflected in the affidavits.
- The OP has filed an affidavit of Sh. Anuj Kumar Singh, Sr. Manager of OP in evidence and corroborated the version of reply. The OP has exhibited documents. Ex OPW1/1 is the Power of Attorney in favour of Sh. Anuj Kumar Singh. EX OPW1/2 is the reply dt 24.8.2020 and EX OPW1/3 is the copy of loan agreement.
- We have heard Ld Counsel for the parties and pursued the entire material on record.
- Ld counsel for the complainant submitted that OP has not charged the rate of interest agreed at the time of signing the loan agreement and unilaterally changed the rate of interest to their detriment and without informing them about the change of rate of interest or option to close the account in case the rate of interest is not acceptable to the complainants. He further submitted that OP has indulged in unfair trade practice by charging the rate of interest at their own whims without bringing anything on record that the complainants have accepted the ongoing rate of interest.
- Ld counsel for the OP submitted that complainants have signed the loan agreement dt 13.4.2006 whereby they have agreed for floating rate of interest instead of fixed rate of interest and this fact is apparent from the clause 1 of the loan agreement dt 13.6.2006. EX OPW1/3. He further submitted that the rate of interest was variable as per the latest guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and there is no deficiency in the service.
- It is clear from the record that complainant have taken a loan of Rs. 7 lacs from the erstwhile OBC. The rate of interest is shown as 8% in the loan agreement dt 13.4.2006 which is repayable in monthly installment of 6700/- for 15 years starting from 01.07.2006.
- The rate of interest at the time of taking of the loan was 8 % per annum. The defense of OP is that complainants have opted for floating rate of interest and rate of interest has been increased from time to time as per the guidelines issued by the RBI.
- The OP has power to change the rate of interest but OP has done it without following the due procedure. The OP has unilaterally increased the rate of interest without informing the complainants. The OP should have informed the complainants that the rate of interest will be increased from a particular date due to change in PLR or guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India from time to time. The reset rate of interest letter has not been issued to the complainants. The consent of the complainants/borrowers was not taken by the OP or by erstwhile OBC. In these circumstances, the erstwhile OBC or OP cannot re-settle rate of interest. Moreover, the OP has not placed on record any instructions issued by RBI to increase the rate of interest from time to time. The unilateral change of interest without any notice or consent of the complainants/borrowers is not permissible. This unilateral change of interest has increased the EMI thereby putting extra burden on the complainants/borrowers without any intimation or notice to them because they have remained under the impression that they are paying installments and interest as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement dt 13.4.2006. I have drawn support from complaint no. 163/2019 titled as Mr. Vishnu BansalVs ICICI Bank Ltd decided on 11.5.2021 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi & first appeal no. 667/2017 titled as ICICI Home Finance VsJarnail Singh decided on 12.2.2018 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab Chandigarh. There is definitely deficiency in service and OP has indulged in unfair trade practices by charging the rate of interest which was not agreed between the parties.
- Keeping in view our aforesaid discussion, the evidence led by the complainants/borrowers is relied upon. The complaint is allowed to the effect that OP will charge interest at the agreed rate of interest i.e. 8% per annum from the date of disbursement of the loan amount and accordingly recasted statement of account shall be issued to the complainants/borrowers within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. The complainants shall pay the outstanding amount, if any, otherwise the OP shall refund the excess amount paid by the complainants to the OP.
The complainants have undergone mental agony and harassment and forced to run from pillar to post for their legitimate right so OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental harassment and agony and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation. The said amount be paid within a period of 45 days otherwise the same is payable with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of Order.
- Copy of this Order be supplied to parties free of cost.
- File is consigned to record room thereafter.
- Announced in the open court.
