Hon'ble Mr. Kamal De, Presiding Member
Order No. : 08
Date : 21.02.2019
Appellant Bank is present through Ld. Lawyer.
Respondent is present in person.
The Appeal is taken up for further hearing.
Heard both sides. Considered.
The instant Appeal is preferred U/S. 17 of the Consumer Protection Act against the impugned order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Puluria in CC/03/2018 titled Sri Laldeb Nandi VS Branch Manager, UBI and Anr.
In filing the Appeal it is alleged that the Ld. Court below passed the impugned order on assumption and presumption ignoring the facts in question and that the impugned order is misconceived, erroneous and contrary to law.
It is also alleged that the Ld. District Forum has passed the impugned order without proper application of judicial mind.
For that the Ld. District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that all the notifications and changes in rate of interest with regard to the housing loan are displayed in the Branch premises of the Appellant Bank which the respondent neglected to know.
It is also alleged that the respondent did not avail the opportunity and did not apply to switch to base rate of interest for the housing loan in 2012.
It is also alleged that the Ld. Forum below failed to appreciate that the respondent made late payment and for that penal interest was charged.
It is also alleged that the Ld. Forum below failed to appreciate that the interest subvention was given under government notification to those loan accounts which fulfil some criteria as per government notification and the loan account of the respondent did not fulfil this criteria and as such the respondent was not liable for interest subvention.
Appellant has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.05.2018.
We have perused the documents and materials on record.
It appears that the respondent in 2010 approached the appellant Bank for availing housing loan and the appellant Bank after considering the application of the respondent sanctioned the housing loan of Rs. 8 lakh for 10 years under United Housing Loan Scheme and to that effect a sanction letter was issued to the respondent on 17.03.2010 wherein it was mentioned that the loan repayable on floating rate of interest and EMI was fixed at Rs. 9919/- payable in 120 instalments.
It appears that the respondent when availed the loan the interest was floating and EMI was fixed at Rs. 9919/- per month and the said loan was repayable in 120 EMIs. The respondent has paid a total sum of Rs. 912548 against 92 EMIs each being at the Rs. 9919/- and by cash Rs. 1 lakh on 12.06.2017 and further sum of Rs. 1 lakh on 06.09.2017 to the appellant. The respondent paid a further sum of Rs. 9903/- in TR Form SB Account.
The respondent alleges that the outstanding amount of the said loan should be less than Rs. 61663/-. It appears that the respondent has been paid Rs. 6166/- on 02.02.2011 towards interest subvention till 2017 whereas he is entitled to have the information regarding interest subvention payable to him being the loanee in respect of house building loan from 2010 to 2017.
The question remains why this anomaly of accounts?
The onslaught is directed against each other.
It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant Bank that the loan of the respondent was sanctioned under floating rate of interest and loan agreement was executed between the Bank and the respondent on the basis of BPLR (Benchmark Prime Lending Rate) which in 2010 was 8.5% and in 2012 it has been 11.85% and still continuing and with that rate till to date as per floating rate of interest.
It is also argued that in 2012 there was a notification for the borrower of the housing loan of the appellant Bank that the borrower of housing loan may switch over to base rate of interest from BPLR but the respondent did not make any application before Bank Authority to avail such facility.
The question is – can the appellant Bank shrug off all its responsibilities stating that there was a notification for the borrower of the housing loan of the appellant Bank which was displayed in the branch premise of the appellant Bank as per the terms of loan agreement and according to Banking norms declared by RBI?
Can the borrower of housing loan be blamed for not to switching off from BPLR to MCLR?
It is categorically stated by the respondent that he was not informed about such scheme of change over from BPLR to MCLR.
We also find that the appellant Bank could not satisfy us that the respondent was informed in any manner about such switch over from BPLR to MCLR or that the respondent was required to make an application before the Bank Authority to avail such facility.
There is no iota of evidence that the appellant took any pain to keep the respondent abreast about such system of changing rate of interest.
We think that it was the duty of the appellant to keep the complainant informed about the system of changing rate of interest or to convert loan from BPLR to MCLR.
It appears that the respondent took the said loan at the rate of interest in BPLR system and the said system was continuing up to 23rd April, 2012.
The system of changing rate of interest from BPLR to MCLR came into Bank after 23rd April, 2012. The respondent was not informed about such system of changing rate of interest, more so, the respondent was a salary account holder under the appellant/OP Bank, and a consumer under OPs/appellant Bank and is in visiting them with the appellant Bank.
We think that it was the duty of the appellant to keep the respondent informed about such system of change of interest or to convert to loan from BPLR to MCLR. Moreover, loan agreement dated 17.03.2010 is interse in between the OP/appellant Bank and the respondent.
We are afraid such interse agreement dated 17.03.2010 has not also been modified or altered as per the change over of the system of changing rate of interest. The rate of interest became static at 11.85% since 2012. In that case, what is the benefit of floating rate of interest?
We think it was sheer the deficiency of service on the part of the appellant Bank. It also appears that the appellant/OP did not collect first EMI on 10.04.2010 and regularly charged a sum of Rs. 1411/- as normal interest and Rs. 3/- as penal interest at Rs. 505263/-.
There is no evidence to prove that the respondent had not that amount in his loan account on 10.04.2010, so that the first EMI on 10.04.2010 could not be exacted. The question remains why Bank failed to collect first EMI or became oblivious?
We think that this is also deficiency in service on the part of the appellant Bank and not to collect first EMI on 10.04.2010 or to charge normal interest or penal interest there upon.
It appears that the EMI is to pay on 10th of each month. The Bank realised the same on 10th of each month.
We do not find any default or irregularity on the part of the complainant/respondent, in spite of that the Bank realised penal interest from the complainant/respondent.
It also appears that the Bank did not give government subvention for the period of March 2011 to 2017. The complainant/respondent gave interest subvention of Rs. 6166/- on 02.02.2011 (single time) and, thereafter, the complainant was not given interest subvention as per government order. No plannable explanation is forthcoming before us as to why the Bank did not accord government subvention to the respondent for the period from March 2011 to 2017 or what were the criterion which were not fulfilled by the respondent to become eligible to get interest subvention from the government.
It appears that BPLR in 2010 was 8.5% and since 2012 it has been 11.85% and is still continuing whereas the rate of interest as per MCLR is 8.65% as this date.
The question is why the respondent would not avail MCLR had he been properly communicated about such change over from BPLR to MCLR by the appellant Bank? Why the respondent would stand to or stick to such loosing proposition?
We think it was the duty of the appellant Bank to keep the respondent communicated about system of changing rate of interest from BPLR to MCLR and to covert his loan from BPLR to MCLR. More so, when the respondent used to receive his salary from the OP/appellant Bank and it can be presumed that the respondent used to visit the OP/appellant Bank but respondent was not informed through any letter or otherwise about such system of changing rate of interest. The respondent was not informed about the increase rate of interest as per BPLR by the appellant Bank and we thick such gesture or commission or omission on the part of appellant Bank amounts to deficiency in service.
As logical follow up of the discussion as made in the earlier paragraphs and having regard to the documents on record and considering all aspects we do not think that the Ld. Court committed any illegally, irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned order.
We are not inclined to interfere into the impugned order passed by the Ld. Forum below.
In result, the Appeal fails.
Hence,
O R D E R
That the instant Appeal being No. RBR/A/13/2018 is dismissed on contest.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
