BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Thursday the 24th day of July, 2008
C.C.No. 144/07
Between:
- P. Seshanna,
H.No.9-8A/1A, Krishna Nagar, Kurnool.
2. Smt. P. Aruna Sree, W/o. P. Seshanna,
H.No.9-8A/1A, Krishna Nagar,Kurnool. … Complainant
Versus
1. Senior Branch Manager, Andhra Bank,
Budhawarpet Branch, Kurnool.
2. Zonal Manager, Andhra Bank,
Opposite Balaji Hotel Kurnool. … Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.Siva Sudharshan, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.A.Rama Subba Reddy, Advocate, for the opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Smt. C. Preethi, Lady Member )
C.C.No.144/07
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/s 11 and 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite parties to return the amount of Rs.1,95,985/- with interest at 24% p.a, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony , cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case is that the complainants are wife and husband availed housing loan under special housing campaign from opposite parties towards construction and completion of building in plot No. 2A and 2 B in Survey No. 752/A2, 752 /02 of Kallur, Kurnool District vide Zonal Office sanction letter dated 29-11-2002 . As per the terms of sanction the complainant submitted all original documents, and the complainant regularly paid the loan installments as per agreement, but surprisingly the complainant receive a letter dated 31-3-2007 from opposite party No.1 stating that the complainants have charged additional interest of Rs.1,95,985/- and to pay the amount within 7 days to bring the account in order. The opposite parties have issued the notice arbitrarily charging excess interest which is illegal, unfair trade practice and against the terms and conditions of agreement . The complainant on 21-5-2007 submitted written representation to opposite party No.1, but opposite party No.1 did not respond. However, due to personal necessities the complainants paid the excess charged amount to opposite parties on protest and paid the entire loan amount and collected the loan documents from opposite parties. There after, on 10-7-2007 the complainant issued legal notice to opposite parties and the opposite parties even though received the said notice did not pay the amount but replied on 8-8-2007 with vague allegations. Hence, the complainant resorted to the forum for relief’s.
3. In substantiation of their case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) Xerox letter dated 29-11-2002 as to the sanction of loan along with terms and conditions , (2) bank statement of account for the period 1-10-2006 to 14-5-2007 of complainant , (3) letter dated 31-3-2007 of opposite party No.1 to the complainants and registered cover dated 17-5-2007, (4) letter dated 21-5-2007 of complainants to opposite party No.1 , (5) office copy of legal notice dated 10-7-2007 addressed to opposite parties 1 and 2 and (6) reply of opposite parties dated 8-8-2007, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A6 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged .
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case. The opposite party No.1 filed written version and opposite party No.2 adopted the written version to opposite party No.1.
5. The written version of opposite parties admits that the complainants obtained loan for construction of residential house by submitting approved plan, thereafter the opposite parties release the loan believing the representation of the complainants. As part of the strategy to over come the housing shortage ,the Government / RBI has adopted a comprehensive policy and the banks are charged lower interest rate than commercial transactions for construction of residential houses. The loan obtained by the complainants is for residential purpose only and not for commercial purpose. The complainant after completion of construction of building used the said building for commercial purpose by letting out the constructed premises to M/s. Sarvepalli Education Society, for running educational institutions in the building. The inspector of the bank on 9-1-2006 found the building premises of the complainants were being was used for commercial purpose in violation of condition of the scheme. Since the building was used for commercial purpose the opposite parties have no option except charging interest stipulated for commercial transactions and demanded the complainants to pay the excess amount and the complainants accepted the usage of building for commercial purpose has paid the excess interest treating the loan as commercial transaction. Hence, they have no right to reopen the transaction which was concluded by acceptance of demand by the complainants. The complainant alleged that due to personal necessities , the complainant paid the excess interest to opposite parties on protest and paid the entire loan amount and collected the documents. The charging of excess interest as stipulated for commercial transactions is not unfair trade practice and there is no illegality and seeks for dismissal of complaint with cost.
6. In support of their case the opposite parties relied on the following documents viz., (1) circular No.437 and (2) guidelines on housing finance besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party in reiteration of his written version and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 and B2 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties ?.
8. It is the case of the complainants that they obtained loan for construction of house from opposite parties vide Ex.A1. The Ex.A1 is the letter of sanction by Assistant General Manager under special housing campaign dated 29-11-2002 . The said loan sanctioned for housing loan for Rs. 8,80,000/- , periodically the opposite parties released the loan after inspection and the complainant regularly paid installments. Thereafter, on 17-5-2007 the complainants received a letter from opposite parties dated 31-3-2007 vide Ex.A3 stating that the complainant was charged with excess interest of Rs. 1,95,985/- and to pay the said amount within 7 days to bring the account in order. The complainant due to personal necessities paid the excess charged interest. On the other side the opposite parties in their written version averments submitted that the said sanctioned loan amount should be used for construction of residential houses only but not for commercial building and the banks charged lower rate of interest than commercial transaction. But in this case the complainant after construction of the building used for commercial purpose by letting out the constructed premises to M/s Sarvepalli Education Society, for running education institution in the building. As the building of the complainant was being used for commercial purpose in violation of condition of the scheme and as per Ex.B2 guidelines on housing finance at page No.4 and Clause. 1.2.3 (7) , the schools and colleges do not form part of housing projects and are not included in housing finance allocation. The counsel for opposite parties strongly contended that as the building of the complainant was used for commercial purpose and the opposite parties had no option except charging rate of interest for commercial transaction, and issued letter dated 31-3-2007 vide Ex.A3 to the complainants to pay the excess charged interest of Rs.1,95,985/- and on demanding the complainants paid the demanded amount without any protest and by paying the said amount the complainant voluntarily accepted his liability treating the loan as commercial transaction. The complainant in complaint averments submitted that he paid excess charged amount due to personnel necessities and no document is filed to show that the said payment was made under protest. When there is no force or coersion from the opposite party and the payment is voluntarily made & cleared the loan and received the title deeds, it cannot be said that payment was made under protest, as per the decision of National Commission published in 1991 CPJ (1) Pg. 236, wherein it was held that when there is no evidence that the complainant had not given valid discharge to the insurer or that the insurance company had coerced the complainant into accepting the settlement unwillingly and involuntarily it cannot be that the complainant was coersed into giving his consent and the settlement was voluntarily accepted.
9. In the present case there is no material on record to show that the complainant was coerced into giving his consent for payment of excess interest charged and it is clearly mentioned in the complaint averments that because of personnel necessities the payment was made, hence it is clear that payment was made voluntarily.
10. To sum up, the above discussion & relying on the decision of National Commission, it cannot be said that the payment made by the complainant was under protest and no deficiency of service was made out against the opposite parties. Hence the complaint of the complainant is dismissed for want of merit and force.
11. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 24th day of July, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Loan sanction letter dated 29-11-2002.
Ex.A2. Bank statement of A/c in the year 01-10-2006 to 14-5-2007.
Ex.A3. Letter dated 31-03-2007 OP.No.1 to complainant along with
registered cover dated 17-05-2007.
Ex.A4. Letter dated 21-05-2007 of complainant to OP.No.1
Ex.A5. Office copy of legal notice dated 10-7-2007 to Ops 1 &2.
Ex.A6. Reply of OP dated 08-08-2007.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Circular No.437.
Ex.B2. Guidelines on Housing Finance.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite party.
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
Copy was posted on :
