DATE OF FILING                    :     26-09-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :      12-11-2013.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     30-06-2014.

Sri Arunava Dutta,

son of late Lakshmi Kanta  Dutta,

residing at 124/19, Maherdra Bhattacharjee  Road,

Santragachi, Howrah,

PIN – 711 104.------------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

Senior Branch Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Howrah Branch,

18A, G.T. Road, Howrah,

PIN – 711 101.-----------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

      Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.     

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O    R   D    E     R

1.               The instant case was filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.P. for settlement of outstanding dues on receiving the balance 8 installments as per settlement of EMI amounts from the matured amount against TDR including return back the deposited documents viz.-viz. LIC policy, NSC etc. together with compensation of Rs. 7 lakhs and litigation costs along with other reliefs against home loan amounting to Rs. 2,37,500/- to the complainant in spite of paying  EMIs of 112 installments upto  August,2012 as per agreement dated                      @  Rs. 2275/- per month against 120 installments of fixed rate 8.75%  p.a. arbitrarily enhanced/ calculated EMI of Rs. 2,975/- ( more of less ) per month to be paid for the entired 120 installments.  

2.               The o.p. i.e., financial institution in his written version denied any arbitrary excessive charge in the account of the complainant and the present dispute in the matter of contract between two parties and is not a subject matter of dispute under the  C.P. Act, 1986. These answering o.p. further opined that the o.p. bank is well within its right to re-schedule of terms of payments including EMIs payable for amortization of the loan and that to any error omission on the part of the bank will not impair the right of the bank to exercise his right for which the complainant is not entitled to get / claim any relief and this instant complaint as made by the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.               Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service  or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.               Both the points are taken up together for consideration. By paying the required amount of installments, complainant becomes a consumer of o.p. We have carefully gone through the written version of o.p. and noted the contents therein. It is admitted facts that the complainant entered into an agreement with the o.p. for a home loan amount of Rs. 2,37,500/- with  monthly payment of fixed rate of interest @ 8.75% p.a. amounting to Rs. @ Rs. 2,275/- per month to be paid equally in 120 installments against purchasing a flat.

5.               The point of dispute is that the isntallaments which is supposed to pay by the complainant differ from Rs. 2,275/-  to Rs. 2,975/- for which the complainant shall have to pay extra burden amounting to Rs. 700/- ( more or less) per month for 120 installments which seems to be arbitrary as it seems.

6.               We have also taken into consideration the agreement for providing home loan in between complainant and o.p. which is self explanatory.

7.               It is also admitted facts that as per sanctioned letter of the o.p. bank the complainant is agreed to pay the EMI in 120 installment @ Rs. 8.75% p.a. Had it been so, any error of calculation for EMI payment  by the o.p. bank, the o.p. bank can claim the actual amount if error detected after later stage to be payable as EMI because of the facts that the o.p. bank handling the public money not for individual. The person concerned responsible for this miscalculation, the o.p. bank can take proper step to the erring staff through their own machinery but under any circumstances the legitimate claim of o.p. bank cannot be  washed out and the complainant is bound to pay the actual EMI as per calculation in anticipation that the complaint cannot be prejudiced for which it is not wise decision for the o.p. bank to compel the complainant for payment of interest of the so called shortfall of Rs. 700/- ( more or less ) against sanctioned EMI of Rs. 2275/- for the aforesaid home loan.

8.               Moreover, the lapses for wrong calculation of EMI @ 8.57% p.a. against sanctioned home loan subsequently ratified the  EMI amount is nothing but a minor error which cannot be taken into against consideration as a service  deficiency of the o.p. bank. But we have our candid opinion that the complainant can get only the relief in the nature of waiver of interest amount for the shortfall against EMI of Rs. 700/- ( more or less) against sanctioned EMI @ Rs. 2,275/- per month which ought to be Rs. 2,975/- (  more or less)   and the o.p. bank can justify for claiming the shortfall of EMI (  Rs. 2,975 – Rs. 2,275 ) for paid 112 installments and balance 8 installments @ Rs. 2,975/- ( more or less ) without adding any interest over the whole 120 installments as the error so detected at the later stage. The complainant cannot be over charged for which we have decided to instruct   the complainant to clear the outstanding amount / shortfall amount for paid 112 installments to be given an opportunity for payment the outstanding arrears in 15 equal installments and rest 8  installments to be paid as usual.

9.               We have not awarded any compensation to the complainant  as we have not found any lapses on the part of the o.ps. for which so called deficiency in service does not hold good against the o.p.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 342  of 2013 ( HDF  342 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with costs against the o.p.

      The O.P.   be directed to realize the arrear  shortfall amounting to Rs. 700/- for paid 112 installments without interest in 15 equal installments and balance installment ( 120 -112 = 8 ) to be realized @ Rs. Rs. 2,975/- per month waiving the interest component.

      No order as to compensation is awarded.

      The complainant is entitled Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs from the o.p.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                         

  Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.