Haryana

StateCommission

A/432/2015

CORPORATION BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

RENU - Opp.Party(s)

G.S.AHLUWALIA

02 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      432 of 2015

Date of Institution:      11.05.2015

Date of Decision :       02.08.2016

 

 

 

Corporation Bank, G.T. Road, Opposite Old Tehsil Mehfil Building, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Renu w/o Sh. Sunil Panwar, Resident of House No.927, New Housing Board Colony, Karnal.

                             Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri G.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated April 6^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Complaint No.215 of 2013.

2.      Renu-complainant (respondent herein), applied loan from Corporation Bank-Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant bank’), for constructing house on plot No.2042, Sector 4-II, Urban Estate, Karnal. The appellant bank sanctioned loan of Rs.8,60,000/- vide letter Exhibit C-19. The rate of interest was 9.25% per annum. Out of the sanctioned loan, an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- was paid to Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) towards the amount due with respect to the price of plot. The appellant bank also paid Rs.75,000/- to the complainant on 19.11.2010. However, rest of the sanctioned loan was not utilized because construction was not raised. The appellant bank treated the entire advanced amount as Personal Loan for which the rate of interest charged was @ 18.25% per annum. Aggrieved thereof, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

3.      The opposite party/appellant contested the complaint by filing written version. It was pleaded that no excess amount was charged nor any penalty was imposed upon the complainant. Rather, the principal and interest accrued thereon was separately calculated in the wake of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed complaint issuing direction to the opposite party/appellant as under:-

“…….we direct the Op to settle the account of the complainant while charging interest @ 9.25% per annum on the amount of Rs.2,60,000/- from the date of disbursement till payment and at the same time we direct the OP to charge interest on the amount of Rs.75,000/- at the rate of 18.25% per annum from the date of disbursement till payment. the complainant shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs.2200/- towards legal fee and litigation expenses. The present complaint is accepted accordingly.”

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party has argued that since the loan amount was not utilized by the complainant for construction of house, so the entire loan amount be treated as Personal Loan.

6.      The contention raised is not tenable. Indisputably, loan was sanctioned by the appellant bank vide letter Exhibit C-19. Clause 2 of Exhibit C-19, under the heading ‘Purpose’ reads as under:-

                   “2.     Purpose:

(i)      The loan is sanctioned to you for the purpose of purchase/construction/extension/repairs/renovation of new/second-hand residential house/flat/plot of land/purchase of consumer durables/furnishings/ takeover of Home Loan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘project’) ……”

7.      It has been clearly mentioned in the above mentioned letter that the loan was sanctioned for the purpose of purchasing plot and also raising construction of house. Indisputably, the amount of Rs.2,60,000/- was paid by the appellant bank directly to HUDA towards the cost of the plot. So, the amount of Rs.2,60,000/- has to be treated as Housing Loan for which the appellant bank is entitled to charge interest @ 9.25% per annum. Since, the amount of Rs.75,000/- which was paid to the complainant, was not utilized for raising construction, so the appellant bank is entitled to charge interest on the amount of Rs.75,000/- @ 18.25% per annum. Thus, the order passed by the District Forum does not call for any interference.

8.      In view of the above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced 02.08.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL