Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

Instant Appeal u/s 15 of the C.P Act, 1986 has been filed by the Appellant/OP Bank challenging the judgment and order dated 16.05.2018 passed by the Ld. District Forum, South 24 Parganas in Complaint Case No. 154/2017 allowing the complaint on contest with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the Respondents/Complainants by the Appellant/OP Bank. The Appellant/OP Bank was further directed to refund to the Respondents/Complainants Rs. 74,400/- to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for causing mental pain and agony to the Respondents/Complainants by their unscrupulous acts.

The entire decretal amount was directed to be paid within one month from the date of the impugned judgment and order, failing which, as ordered, the entire amount shall accrue interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization.

The brief fact of the complaint was that the Respondents/Complainants received from the Appellant/OP Bank a house building loan amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- on 06.03.2006 at a fixed rate of interest of 8.5% p.a. the loan was scheduled to be recovered at an EMI of Rs. 6,200/- in 120 instalments. The loan was fully recovered through regular payment of instalments but, after scrutiny of the Bank statement, the Respondents/Complainants discovered that the Appellant/OP Bank had recovered in excess an amount of Rs. 74,400/- from them. The aggrieved Respondents/Complainants then filed the Complaint Case before the Ld. District Forum. Impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Forum in the said Complaint Case was put under challenge in the instant Appeal.

Heard Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/OP Bank and Respondents/Complainants in person.

The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant/OP Bank admitted that the house building loan was paid to the Respondents/Complainants at a fixed rate of interest of 8.5% p.a.

As submitted, the Respondents/Complainants subsequently switched over to MCLR rate of interest in terms of the RBI guidelines exercising their options. As submitted, the papers relating to their exercising options for switching over to MCLR rate of interest were produced before the Ld. District Forum. Those were not taken cognizance of while arriving at the conclusive findings for passing the impugned judgment and order.

Referring to the Annexure A and B, being the two of the documents furnished through a ‘Firisti’ by the Appellant/OP Bank, the Ld. Advocate continued that the said documents, although were left all columns blank, were signed by the Respondents/Complainants living an indication as to their intention to go by the MCLR rate of interest offered to them in terms of the RBI guidelines which the Ld. District Forum arbitrarily refused to accept.

The impugned order, as concluded, being a perverse one and not delivered with due application of mind, deserved to be set aside allowing the Appeal.

The Respondent/Complainant No. 1, per contra, submitted that the recovery of loan was being made through uninterrupted payment of EMIs. As further submitted, the fixed rate of interest, for an inexplicable reason, changed to MCLR rate. As he continued to submit, through this change, the Appellant/OP Bank very cleverly elongated the period of recovery of loan and thereby realized an excess amount to the tune of Rs. 74,400/-.

As he continued, the Ld. District Forum had passed the impugned order on proper appreciation of the merit of the case. The impugned judgment and order, in the light of the above, deserved to be affirmed.

We have perused the papers on record and considered submissions of both sides. No LCR was received from the Ld. District Forum in spite of requisition being sent to it in time. The impugned order, while pointing out the deficiency on the part of the Appellant/OP Bank, was categorical about not furnishing the circular of the RBI offering the MCLR rate. Non-availability of the exact rate of interest offered to the kinds of loanees like the Respondent/Complainant actually stood in the way of ascertaining as to how the offered MCLR rate of interest went to favour the Respondents/Complainants.

The impugned judgment and order was also speaking about non-acceptability of the option letter for borrower and the option exercised by the Respondents/Complainants as all columns of the said documents were left blank.

The Appeal petition was not found to be containing the RBI circular in question. We found astonishingly with the two documents mentioned above, figuring in the ‘Firisti’ submitted by the Appellant/OP Bank were containing only the signature of the Respondent/Complainant No. 1 when all columns in the form remained unfilled. What was more, the agreement for changing to MCLR system, submitted through the said ‘Firisti’ was also found to be containing signature of the Respondent/Complainant No. 1 only with the other columns on the body of the form remaining blank. This meant, the Appeal was preferred without any added information enriching the ground for its filing. It rather became apparent that the concept of MCLR rate of interest was not properly explained to the Respondents/Complainants. The Appellant/OP Bank got the blank form signed by the Respondent/Complainant No. 1 to serve its own interest without even letting the Respondents/Complainants know the rate of interest offered to them by the RBI through the MCLR system. The Appellant/OP Bank, in view of the above, had shown utter indifference to the interest of the Respondents/Complainants, the consumers herein which did not tell very high of its efficiency as service provider. The Ld. District Forum appeared to have done no wrong by passing the impugned judgment and order.

We are of the considered view that the impugned judgment and order does not deserve any intervention from this end.

Hence,

Ordered

that the Appeal be and same stands dismissed. Impugned judgment and order stands affirmed. No order as to costs.