DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 1 of 15.1.2016
Decided on: 26.4.2018
Sham Lal, aged about 47 years, son of Late Sh.Ram Dass, resident of House No.2759, Phase-II. Urban Estate, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Assistant General Manager, SARB Cell, SBOP, 3rd Floor, Near Domino’s Pizza, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Patiala.
2. State Bank of Patiala, Branch Urban Estate, Phase-II, Patiala through its Branch Manager.
3. Chief Manager, SARB Cell, SBOP, 3rd Floor, Near Domino’s Pizza, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Sham Lal, complainant in person.
Sh.Anand Puri,Advocate, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Sham Lal, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) .The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
2. That on 19.2.2007,the complainant obtained house loan from Op No.2 to the extent of Rs.10lacs, against account No.65021765327@ 10% per annum, to be repaid in 180 monthly installment for 15 years. The complainant initially made payments with Op No.2. However, subsequently the loan account of the complainant became irregular. The OPs after declaring the said loan account as NPA, proceeded against the hypothecated property of the complainant under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. Against the said recourse, the complainant approached the DRT where he was told to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards his willingness and was directed to make negotiations with the OPs for repayment of loan amount. He was granted time upto 28.9.2015. He approached the OPs for negotiating the loan amount after the order dated 2.9.2015 of DRT, Chandigarh. However, during the course of negotiation, it transpired that the OP No.2 without any intimation and consent of the complainant, increased the rate of interest from 11.25% P.A. to 12.75% per annum, thereby increased the number of installments from 180 to 240 as well as amount of EMI. That the action of the OPs is arbitrary and illegal and against the rights of the complainant and amounted to deficiency of service on their part, which caused mental agony and physical harassment to him. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving directions to the OPs to reduce the interest rate on the house loan account from 12.75% to11.25% per annum, thereby reducing the total amount as assessed to be paid by an amount of Rs.6,91,200/- for a period of 15 years instead of for the period of 20 years; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of illegal and corrupt practices of OPs; to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment; to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses and also to grant any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.
3. On being put to notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed their written version taking preliminary objections that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum is barred under Section 34 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002(SARFAESI); that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the OPs; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands; that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had taken the house loan for a sum of Rs.10lac from OP No.2 vide loan account No.65021765327 on 19.2.2007. It is denied that the said loan was given @10% per annum. It is stated that in the arrangement letter Housing FINA dated 20.6.2007, it is mentioned that “ the interest on the loan will be charged at 1.75% p.a. below BPLR which is currently 13.00% p.a. with a minimum interest rate ( the current effective rate being 11.25% p.a.) with monthly rests. The rate of interest is subject to revision from time to time…….” The arrangement letter dated 20.6.2007 was duly signed by the complainant and his wife. It is stated that due to non payment of the loan installments by the complainant in became NPA on 16.12.2011 and the bank was entitled to penal/ or higher interest as it deem fit as per the terms and conditions of the loan documents. Presently the rate of interest is 12.75% p.a. with monthly rests and the same has been rightly claimed from the complainant. It is further stated that the complainant failed to comply with the directions given by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) order dated 21.12.2009, thereby directed the complainant to deposit atleast a sum of rs.30,000/- within a period of 15 days i.e. on or before 5.1.2010 and another sum of Rs.20,000/- within a period of one month from there and subsequent arrangement must be made by the complainant to deposit Rs.50,000/- to regularize the account within a period of next one month from the second phase of time. When the complainant failed to comply with the said order, the OPs started proceedings under SARFAESI Act .It is stated that DRT,Chandigarh observed that the complainant did not comply with the order dated 21.12.2009 and vide order dated 2.9.2015, it was ordered to the complainant to deposit Rs.1lac on 28.9.2015 and also to clear all outstanding amounts by 15.12.2015. it was also ordered that if the amount of Rs.one lac was not deposited by the due date and also the entire amount was not cleared by 15.12.2015, the bank would take action in the matter in accordance with law.The instead of complying the order filed an appeal against the said order, which was also dismissed on 30.11.2015. The complainant again challenged the aforesaid orders before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh by filing writ petition but the same has been withdrawn by him 19.1.2016. It is stated that the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the loan documents . The OPs are charging the interest as per RBI’s instructions.There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. On being called to do so, the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA his own affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C3 and closed his evidence.
The ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Smt.Charanjit Kaur, Chief Manager ,SARB, SBOP alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP6 and closed the evidence of OPs.
5. We have heard the complainant , the ld. counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. From the copy of arrangement letter, Housing FINA, dated 2007, Ex.OP2, it is evident that the complainant had availed the housing loan worth Rs.10lacs, on the floating rate of interest, from State Bank of Patiala i.e. OP No.2. In the said letter, it is mentioned that interest on the loan will be charged at 1.75% p.a. ( below BPLR, which is currently 13% percent per annum, the current effective rate being 11.25% per annum with monthly rests. As per the OPs, they have charged the rate of interest from the complainant on the floating rate of interest, as per the RBI instructions. Whenever there is change in rate of interest, the repayment of schedule is also likely to be changed. Since there was increase in the rate of interest, therefore, the number of installments to repay the EMIs was also increased and nothing in excess had been charged from the complainant.
7. The grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have charged more interest than the prevalent rate of interest, at the relevant time. However, no such document has been placed on record by the complainant to show that the OPs have charged more rate of interest from him than the rate fixed by RBI at the relevant time.Thus in the absence of any documentary evidence, it cannot be said that the OPs have charged more rate of interest than as agreed upon at the time of taking the loan by the complainant. In the case of ICICI Bank ( Home Loan) and others Vs. Ganga Singh Shikhawat III(2015)CPJ 507(NC), the Hon’ble National Commission, has held that, loan was taken on floating rate of interest, which tends to be increased or decreased by the RBI. Though petitioner did not intimate about increasing rate of interest at every time nor placed directions of RBI with regard to floating rate of interest, yet they were entitled to enhance rate of interest.” Further in the case HIMATSINH NARAYAN RAO SHINDE(Dr.) vs. LIC Housing Finance co. Ltd. 1(2014) CPJ 90(NC), the Hon’ble National Commission, has held that, ‘whenever there is change in interest rate, amount of EMI and repayment schedule are likely to change’.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint. Consequently, we dismiss the same, without any order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:26.4.2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
