31.08.2015
MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.
The instant appeal has been filed by the Appellants/O.Ps challenging the judgment and order No. 24 dated 13.02.2013 passed the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit – I in Complaint Case No. 333/2010.
The Ld. District Forum in the said impugned order directed the Appellants/O.Ps jointly and/or severally to continue the interest @ 7.75% per annum till 27.11.2011 and to regularize the balance of the Complainant’s loan account by “deducting” a sum of Rs.66,273/- which was added by Appellants/O.Ps’ bank illegally with the principal loan amount bearing Loan Account No. 11140606554 (Old No. 01593026597). The Appellants/O.Ps were also directed to deduct a sum of Rs.885.85 only which was levied additionally as “fine” and also rectify the Respondent/Complainant’s loan account by deducting all the amount including interest, if charged above the rate of 7.75% till 27.11.2011. There were further directions upon the Appellants/O.Ps to pay to the Respondent/Complainant a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony and a litigation cost of Rs.7,000/- within a period of 45 days from the date of the impugned order, failing which, an interest @ 9% would accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the Respondent/Complainant till full realization.
Respondent/Complainant was allowed liberty to file execution case under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in case of non-compliance of the impugned order in its entirety within the stipulated period.
The facts of the case, as emerged, are that the Respondent/Complainant received a bank loan to the tune of Rs.14,00,000/- from the Appellant./O.P. No. 2 for purchasing a house property at fixed rate of interest of 7.75% per annum for a term of 15 years upon processing fees of Rs.4,200/- along with other privileges.
An agreement was executed on 24.11.2005 by and between the Respondent/Complainant and the Appellants/O.Ps. One of the conditions in the said agreement was that the interest on loan would be charged at 7.75% per annum on daily reducing balance at monthly rests, subject to interest rate reset at the end of every three years on the basis of the fixed interest rate prevailing then.
The Respondent/Complainant received a loan of Rs.13.29 lakh from the Appellant/O.P. No. 2 and purchased the property by a registered Sale Deed. The Respondent/Complainant started paying EMI from November, 2005. The EMIs, then onwards, were being paid regularly by the Respondent/Complainant to the Appellants/O.Ps.
The Appellant/O.P. No. 2 issued one “certificate” dated 20.04.2010 wherein the rate of interest for the year 2009-2010 was shown as 7.75% per annum. Subsequently, on receiving the statement of accounts, the Respondent/Complainant found that there were reflections in the entry dated 08.06.2010 of an increase of interest, firstly from 7.75% per annum to 9.75% per annum and thereafter from 9.75% per annum to 12% per annum. There was accordingly an addition of Rs.66,273/- only in the form of arrear interest as the Appellants/O.Ps charged interest @ 12% with effect from 28.11.2008 and reflected in the entry dated 08.06.2010 adding the arrear interest indicated above to the principal due amount on the Respondent/Complainant’s home loan. It was further revealed that on 31.07.2010, the Appellants/O.Ps charged a “fine” to the tune of Rs.885.85 for the above indicated arrear adjustment.
The Respondent/Complainant raised strong objection against such sudden enhancement of rate of interest and charging unilaterally such arrear interest and “fine” without giving prior notice to the Respondent/Complainant as per terms and conditions of the agreement, and communicated to the Appellants/O.Ps through e-mail and letter pointing out the above lapses on the part of the Appellants/O.Ps and also requesting them to take immediate corrective measures.
There being no corrective steps on the part of the Appellants/O.Ps, the Respondent/Complainant filed the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum. The impugned order that has been challenged in the instant appeal originated from the said complaint case.
Heard Ld. Advocates of both the parties. The Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Appellants brought to our notice para 3 of the letter dated 24.11.2005 of the Appellant/O.P. No. 2 and submitted that the Appellant/O.P. No. 2 had explicitly clarified the position of the rate of interest to be charged on the loan amount. He further brought to our notice the answers given by the Respondent/Complainant to the questions 6, 7 & 10 of the questionnaire by the Appellants/O.Ps in the Ld. District Forum and contended that Respondent/Complainant was very much aware of the rate of interest and regarding reset of interest as per accepted terms of agreement which is binding upon both the parties. He further added that the adjustment of Rs.66,273/- was made under instruction of the Central Office Inspector. He admitted the fact that there was mistake on the part of the Appellants/O.Ps for not informing the Respondent/Complainant in advance about the adjustment. The Ld. Advocate prayed for the judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Forum to be set aside in the light of the above circumstances.
The Ld. Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant, on the other hand, stated that the Appellants/O.Ps should have given an intimation in advance about the increased rate of interest so as to enable the Respondent/Complainant to avail himself of the scope to terminate the loan account on 28.11.2008 as envisaged in terms and conditions of the agreement. The Ld. Advocate went on to point out further that the Appellants/O.Ps had imposed upon the Respondent/Complainant a penal interest considering the Respondent/Complainant as a defaulter while the Respondent/Complainant was regular in repayment of loan and interest. He stated that all the above are clear instances of deficiencies on the part of the Appellants/O.Ps and prayed for upholding the judgment and order of the Ld. District Forum.
Perused the papers on record. It appears that the Appellants/O.Ps charged the arrear interest of Rs.66,273/- from the Respondent/Complainant on the basis of the enhancement of the rate of interest first from 7.75% per annum to 9.75% per annum and thereafter 9.75% per annum to 12% per annum without giving the Respondent/Complainant any information through prior notice about such increase in the rate of interest in due time as was required as per terms and conditions of the agreement. The Appellants/O.Ps further imposed upon the Respondent/Complainant a “fine” considering him a defaulter in payment of interest at the enhanced rate.
In our views there were deficiencies on the part the Appellants/O.Ps. The rate of interest be treated as 7.75% at fixed rate and the excess amount realized be adjusted and credited to the loan account of the Complainant. The Ld. District Forum was justified in awarding compensation and cost due to the deficiencies in service on the part of the Appellant Bank.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that the appeal be dismissed on contest with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the Appellants/O.Ps to the Respondent/Complainant within 30days from the date of this order, failing which, interest @ 9% shall accrue to the said amount from the date of default till the full payment is made.
