Punjab

Sangrur

CC/240/2015

Shanawar Sultana - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBOP - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rohit Jain

06 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    240

                                                Instituted on:      28.04.2015

                                                Decided on:       06.10.2015

 

Shanawar Sultana widow of Mohammad Munir Khan, Advocate, resident of Pandher Colony, Thandi Sarak, Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     State Bank of Patiala through its Chief/Branch Manager, Main branch, Near Hanuman Mandir, Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.

2.     State Bank of Patiala through its General Manager, Head Office, The Mall, Patiala.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate.

For opposite parties    :       Shri Amit Jain, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : K.C.Sharma, Member.

 

1.             Smt. Shanawar Sultana, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant took a house loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the OPs in April, 2005 under loan account number 55111589999 which was to be returned to the Ops in a period of 10 years and the Ops fixed a monthly instalment of Rs.2500/- per month and the Ops got deposited the original registered sale deed with them. The case of the complainant is that she paid all the instalments to OP number 1 from April, 2005 to  March, 2015 in time and after deposit of all the instalments the complainant requested the Ops to issue no due certificate, but the Ops put off the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly asked the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.44,000/- being the due amount as the rate of interest was increased from time to time. The complainant has further averred in the complaint that the rate of interest was ‘fixed one’ and was not ‘floating one’, but nothing was heard by the Ops.  The complainant also got served a legal notice upon the OPs, but all in vain.  It is further also averred that the complainant was forced by the Ops to pay instalment of Rs.2800/- per month from January, 2014 onwards.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to issue no due certificate to the complainant against her loan and further to refund the amount of Rs.4500/- which was got deposited by the Ops in excess and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it has been admitted that the complainant approached OP number 1 for a loan of Rs.2,00,000/-, which was disbursed to the complainant in April, 2005 under account number 55111589999, which was to be reimbursed in 120 monthly instalments. It is stated in the reply of the complaint that as per one of the clauses of the term loan agreement dated 23.4.2005 duly executed and signed by the complainant the interest on loan was to be applied at the floating rate of interest linked with the BPLR i.e. @ 2% below bench mark prime lending rate (LTPLR) rising and falling therewith, with quarterly rests calculated on the daily outstanding balance of the loan amount and the bank was entitled from time to time and at any time without notice to the complainant vary and change the rate of interest depending on the changes in LTPLR and/or the rests of interest and such revised, varied and changed rate and/or rests of interest was always be construed as agreed to be paid by the complainant and that secured and application of such revised, varied and changed rate and/or rests of interest on the outstanding loan amount was deemed to be sufficient notice to the complainant which shall be binding on the complainant. It is further stated that an amount of Rs.44,314.59 is still outstanding against the complainant as on 31.3.2015. It is further stated that the outstanding amount has rightly been demanded.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of notice, Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-17 copies of vouchers, Ex.C-18 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced on record Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copies of terms and conditions/application form dated 23.4.2005, Ex.OP-3 copy of term loan agreement, Ex.OP-4 copy of writing of the complainant dated 23.4.2005, Ex.OP-5 copy of letter regarding one time option dated 6.9.2013, Ex.OP-6 copy of reply dated 15.4.2015 to legal notice, Ex.OP-7 copy of account statement, Ex.OP-8 copy of circular dated 22.1.2013, Ex.OP-9 copy of circular dated 19.2.2013, Ex.OP-10 copy of circular dated 22.7.2013, Ex.OP-11 copy of circular number GB/ALM/5/13-14 dated 3 Sept and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant had taken a house loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from OP number 1 in April, 2005 under loan account number 55111589999 which was repayable in the period of 10 years and the monthly instalment was Rs.2500/- per month.  It is also an admitted fact that the complainant has deposited the instalments regularly from April, 2005 and the instalment of loan from the month of January, 2014, the same was increased from Rs.2500/- to Rs.2800/- per month. Now, the complainant is aggrieved on non issuance of the no due certificate by the OPs despite deposit of whole of the loan amount, whereas the Ops have been demanding an amount of Rs.44314.59 due on 31.3.2015 as outstanding dues on account of revised rate of interest etc.   

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that at the time of disbursement of the loan, it was agreed that the rate of interest shall be fixed one, whereas the contention of the learned counsel for the OPs is that the rate of interest was floating meaning that the rate of interest fluctuated from time to time meaning that the floating rate of interest linked with the BPLR i.e. @ 2% below bench mark prime lending rate (LTPLR) rising and falling therewith, with quarterly rests calculated on the daily outstanding balance of the loan amount and the bank was entitled from time to time and at any time without notice to the complainant vary and change the rate of interest depending on the changes in LTPLR and/or the rests of interest and such revised, varied and changed rate and/or rests of interest was always be construed as agreed to be paid by the complainant and that secured and application of such revised, varied and changed rate and/or rests of interest on the outstanding loan amount was deemed to be sufficient notice to the complainant which shall be binding on the complainant. Further it is clear from the document Ex.OP-2 that the rate of interest was on floating basis meaning thereby the same is fluctuating basis.  It is further on record that the complainant was paying the loan instalment of Rs.2500/- per month from 19.7.2005 onwards till 5.10.2013 and thereafter she paid the loan instalment of Rs.2800/- per month from 6.11.2013 till 5.3.2015, as is evident from the copies of bank accounts statements, copies of which are on record as Ex.OP-7.  There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why she enhanced the instalment of Rs.2500/- to Rs.2800/- per month, if the rate of interest was fixed one and not floating one.   Under the circumstances, we find that in the present case since the rate of interest was floating one and the Ops have acted as per the guidelines/instructions of the RBI regarding rate of interest on loan accounts and was revised from time to time.  In the circumstances, we find that the complainant has failed to prove his case by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence that she had availed the house loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from OP number 1 on fixed rate of interest basis.  As such, we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant.  However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

 

                Pronounced.

                October 6, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member