Pawan Duggal complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite party to refund the excess recovery of Rs.1,97,437/- from him against the terms of agreement dated 29.05.2017 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing the claim till its realization. Opposite party be further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- for physical and mental harassment and for deficiency in service alongwith Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses to him, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he applied for loan from the opposite party on 27.05.2015 for Rs.35 lacs, which was sanctioned and agreement to this effect was executed between the parties on 29.5.2015 including the condition that borrower shall repay to the bank the amount of loan with interest @ 10.95% P.A. He continued to repay the loan amount in equated monthly installments commencing for June 2015 to the satisfaction of the Bank. On 28.12.2015 the Bank charged fine ARR adjustment charges Rs.5756.04 in his account. When the matter took up with the opposite party they assured that there is nothing to worry as it is just some system error and the same will be reversed and the opposite party reversed Rs.5756.04 eventually similar charges were being charged and then reversed from his account and he ignored. On 13.4.2017, he repaid the balance amount of Rs.28 lacs and the loan account was deemed to be closed but he was shocked to know that all the charges that were conveyed by the bank as being reversed were actually shown outstanding in his Loan account which amounts to cheating and deficiency in service. The matter was taken up with the opposite party verbally but there was no positive response. Letters dated 24.5.17, 14.7.17 and 19.9.17 delivered to the opposite party with request to redress his genuine grievance and refund the excess interest rate charged but of no use. As per Bank Statement, a sum of Rs.1,87,869.62 is still required to recover from him on account of Fine ARR adjustment charges and interest rate charges more than 12.6% since 19.5.2015. He deposited the balance payment upto 4.9.2017 and there was balance interest payment of Rs.610.62 which enhanced to Rs.713.62 as on 30.09.2017. He thereafter cross checked the rate of interest charges by the bank and other expenses and came to know that opposite party bank recovered excess amount of Rs.1,97,437/- from him against the terms of agreement dated 29.05.2017, which although admitted by the opposite party official but shown their inability to refund the same . Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party who appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; no cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the opposite party; the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and filed the present false complaint. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant has paid his maximum amount of his loan account leaving negligible amount with sole motive of filing this complaint. No amount has been charged to the complainant over and excess, or beyond the agreed rate of interest and the complainant has already paid the same. Rate of interest is higher on this product as it is not a housing loan or loan availed for construction/purchase of house. There was no dispute of any sort between the complainant and bank after repayment of the loan amount. The complainant has filed the present false complaint by setting up a false and concocted story with sole motive to cause unnecessary harassment and inconvenience to the opposite party for no fault on its part. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed the evidence.
5. Counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Rajeev Mahajan Chief Manager Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.
6. We have thoroughly examined the available documents/evidence on the records so as to statutorily interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference on account of some documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants as measured against the back-drop of the arguments put forth by the learned counsels for their respective contestants. We find that the present dispute has arisen at the impugned ‘debit-charging’ of interest by the OP Bank at an allegedly excessive rate to that of mutually-agreed upon documented rate. At the OP Bank’s final refusal to refund the so-alleged excessive ‘interest’ the complainant has preferred the present complaint seeking relief by way of requisite refund and an appropriate cost/compensation etc.
7. The complainant has produced affidavit (Ex.Cw1/A) deposing the contents of the allegation-contented complaint along with other evidentiary documents (Ex.C1 to Ex.C11) in support by way of statutory evidence. The related Loan Agreement (Ex.C1) indicates its execution on 29.05.2015 between complainant and the OP Bank with its ‘non-deletion’ of the first part of clause ‘2’ establishing the sanction/disbursement of Loan at ‘fixed rate of interest’ and not at ‘floating rate’ as has been inadvertently managed by the OP Bank. Further, its clause ‘2(a)’ no doubt, entitles the OP Bank to charge interest at the upwardly updated rate (against the ‘documented rate) i.e., higher rate but only through first issuance of appropriate ‘pre-intimation notice(s)’ preceding the resultant debits.
8. We observe that the OP Bank has neither produced the related ‘sanction’ nor the issuance/acceptance of any pre-intimation notices (qua the complainant) pertaining to the charging of interest at enhanced rates. The OP Bank, of course, has produced its affidavit (Ex.OP1) deposing the contents of its written statement along with e-circular (Ex.OP2) # PB/PL/49 dated 22.02.2014 and Statement of A/c (Ex.OP3) and these two both jointly establish that the ‘charged-interest’ has not been in conformity either with e-circular (Ex.OP2) or with Loan Agreement Ex.C1. We are of the considered opinion that that OP Bank has severely bruised the consumer rights of the present complainant by way of charging interest upon his loan in an arbitrary and dictatorial manner and has thus (in the process) attracted an adverse statutory award under the applicable Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We find that the titled opposite party Bank have duly admitted interest alteration through written statement and accompanying affidavit (Ex.OP1) on the strength of the exhibited e-circular (Ex.OP2) as has also been evident vide the related Loan A/c (Ex.OP3) but somehow the OP have failed to produce any cogent evidence of interest-enhancement notice/acknowledgement/acceptance at the complainant’s end and that entitles him to refund of excessive interest charged in his Loan A/c by way of unilateral upward revision of Interest Rate sans pre-intimation/ notice.
9. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled opposite party Bank to to refund the excess interest I.e Rs.1,97,437/- so determined to the complainant besides to pay him Rs.5,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation but within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA form the date of the orders till actual payment.
10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
July, 11 2018. Member
*MK*
