Order-16.
Date-19/08/2015.
Complainants ShyamSaraf&Girdhari Lal Sarafby filing this complaint has submitted that they took Home loan from the Citi Bank in the year 2005 for purchase of a flat and thereafter complainants duly paid the EMI to the Citi Bank and subsequently thereafter complainants intended to switch over the said Home loan from Citi Bank to the present op Bank Standard Chartered Bank as regard the Housing Loan in question and accordingly they contacted with the ops and signed the necessary papers and documents for switching over the said Home Loan in the month of December-2005 and also filled up the Indemnity as well as the Declaration – Home Loan and also filled up the Home Loan application from as issued by the ops and complainants paid the amount of Rs. 10,600/- to the ops against the Home Loan Processing fees on account of Standard Chartered Bank A/c Home Loan Processing Fees and they issued the 8 numbers of undated and blank cheques duly signed by the complainant no.2 in the name of Standard Chartered Bank and accordingly the ops proceeded the said Home Loan in favour of the complainants.
In fact ops took the signature in theblank form and when ops asked the photocopy of those documents, then ops promised that the copy of the same shall be handed over, even after short period of time but ops failed and neglected to supply the same after lapse of long time, ops issued some of the papers to the complainant one by one but till date there are so many papers and documents which are not delivered.
On 02.01.2006 ops issued a Home Loan Sanction letter duly mentioned that ‘thank you for choosing our Home Loan/Home Saver Product’. But most surprisingly the ops by a letter dated 09.01.2006 intimated the Loan Account No. 44425414 and the total loan amount was sanctioned for the amount of Rs. 16,30,000/- and ops mentioned that the ‘Loan Against Property’ and so complainants contacted with the ops regarding the Loan Against Property instead of Home Loan and ops directly told the complainants that there was no problem regarding mentioning of Loan Against Property instead of Home Loan and the rate of interest is also same and ops alsostated that in the letter dated 09.01.2006 it has been clearly mentioned that ‘Your Home Loan is repayable in 144 equated monthly installments (EMIs) of Rs. 19,012/- each, comprising principal and interest’ and as such there is nothing to think about it and the loan is absolutely registered in the account of Home Loan.
Subsequently ops issued letters to the complainants mentioning the Home Loan and in the letter dated 17.08.2006 ops issued an apology letter to the complainants stating that .we wish to state that above communication had erroneously mentioned the type of loan as a personal loan, as against home loan any inconvenience caused to you is regretted.. Complainants time to time made payment to the ops by cheque and by specifically mentioned that SCB Home Loan A/c No. 44425414 and again and again informed to the ops regarding the wrong communication by mentioning the Loan Against Property in place of Home Loan and again on 27.09.2012 the same objection was raised by the complainants, but on the same date by another letter it was mentioned and in fact a single EMI has been unpaid by the complainants and till date ops refused to accept the regular EMI since the month of June-2012 and even issued a pay order for amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- in the name of the ops along with a cheque amounting to Rs. 21,350/- by hand, but they also refused to accept by receiving section of the ops and even complainants intended to repay the whole due amount to the ops which is also the ops refused to accept for the reason best known to them.
On 23.11.2012 again issued letter to the ops stating the commission of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice committed by the ops and also requested to the ops to intimate the total amount due against the Loan so that complainants can arrange to pay the entire due amount to the ops. But subsequently ops by a letter dated 03.12.2012 claimed the amount of Rs. 2,55,501.35 paisa to the complainants against closure of the subject loan where ops claimed the prepayment charges at the rate of 4.49 percent whereas in the terms and conditions issued by the ops on 02.05.2006 that there will be of 2.5 percent on the principal outstanding at the time of such closure and that too in case of Loan Against Property and in case of Home Loan there shall be no pre-closure charges as per the norms of the RBI and ops by violating the terms and conditions realized the pre-closure charges wrongly at the rate of 4.49 percent and also claimed the amount of Rs. 1,64,218/- in the name of arrears which is a case of gross deficiency in service and at the same unfair trade practice.
Moreover as per Home Loan Interest at the rate of 12.5 percent p.a. and by a letter dated 29.07.2009 ops collected the rate of interest 14.25 percent p.a.whereas by letter dated 18.11.2010 the ops realized the rate of interest 15 percent p.a. and by letter dated 23.01.2011 ops realized the rate of interest 16.75 percent p.a. and last of all by letter dated 03.08.2011 ops realized the rate of interest 17.25 percent p.a. for which such sort of realization is illegal, uncalled for and not tenable in the eye of law.
In fact ops at their own will and whims they illegally changed such sort of rate of interest 17.25 percent p.a. So as per Home Loan as per RBI guideline, the same interest rate has not accepted at any level 12 percent p.a. So, in the above circumstances, complainant made so many demand to the op Bank for requesting the same and also asked the complainants to settle the matter and refund the amount which has been collected by the ops in excess, but ops did not settle the same for which complainants filed this complaint for compensation and refund of money.
On the other hand op nos. 1 & 2 the Standard Chartered Bank by filing written statement submitted that based on the Application Form and relevant documents submitted by the complainant to the op Bank, loan amount of Rs. 16,30,000/- had been sanctioned to the complainant vide Sanction Letter dated 28.12.2005 and in the sanctioned letter it is clearly stated about the purpose, type, tenure, interest type, monthly installment, processing fee and property details etc. along with other terms and conditions of the loan sanctioned to the complainant is noted and purpose of the loan is against property is noted in the said application and fact remains prior of the disbursal of the loan, complainant has provided end use letter which clearly stated that the subject as Application for Loan Against Property and the purpose of the loan is – pre closure of existing loans and business expansion and the loan availed of by the complainant from Citi Bank was on the same property which was purchased by the complainant in the year 1991 and the Sale Deed executed in favour of complainant/borrower is of 1991 and the op bank further stated that they have not given any loan for purchasing of a new property but they have taken over existing loan from Citi Bank and also have made advances for repayment of complainant’s other existing loan held with Punjab & Sindh Bank. Though as per loan purpose declaration, the bank has given loan against property and the loan by no means can be treated as Home Loan (i.e. purchase of new residential property).
Moreover Home Loan is a generic term and does not necessarily indicate loan for purchasing residential accommodation, i.e. in other words the character and nature of loan does not depend on the nomenclature but on the sum and substance of the purpose of the loan itself. So, op Bank denies all the allegations of the complainants.
Moreover complainant’s allegation is that he signed in blank form is completely false because complainant himself stated that in paragraph-2 of the complaint that the complainant has signed the necessary papers and documents for switching over the said loan and also filled up the indemnity as well as the Declaration Form. So, the allegation is totally false and fabricated and created one. Moreover complainant for the repayment of loan account, complainant provided the ECS from his Punjab & Sind Bank account, but it has been noted that the various occasions complainant has not cleared the EMI. Further from December-2009, Bank stopped making presentation of EMI through ECS as the EMI for the month of November-2009 got bounced for that reason that account was closed and as per RBI Circular – further presentation will not be done till the complainant swaps the mode of repayment. But even then complainant did not pay bounded charges, penal interest from the year 2011 whereas the present op Bank’s records during the month of September 2010, op bank reversed the bound charges of Rs. 8,174/- and Rs. 6564.95 paisa and in fact thereafter op bank stopped payment of EMI against loan account since June 2012 till September- 2012 and then effected the part of payment and again stopped making payment from December-2012.
It is specifically mentioned that all the interest charges, penalty/foreclosure charges were charged as per RBI guideline. But op Bank has confirmed that there is no levy pre-payment penalty on all floating rate terms loans as per RBI guideline dated 07.05.2014. In fact it was a floating/variable interest rate category, all the variable interest rate category loans booked prior to July 2010 were linked to the Mortgage Variable Reference Rate (MVRR) of the Bank and any change in the MVRR have an impact on the interest rate of the loan account sanctioned under variable rate interest category and on account of revision of MVRR, the interest rate of the complainant’s loan account has been revised.
So, there was no negligence and deficiency on the part of the ops. But in the meantime for non-payment of the outstanding loan amount, the loan account of the complainant has been declared NPA during the month of September-2012 and as on date there is an outstanding of Rs. 3,70,919.72paisa + Rs. 4,203.25 paisa as accrued charges as on 05.05.2015 and in view of the above fact and circumstances, the present complaint should be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
After comparative study of the complaint and written version and also considering the material document that is loan application as submitted by the complainant for getting loan and from that submission it is found that the said application was duly signed by the complainant and complainant submitted it that is admitted by the complainant and in the said application it is specifically mentioned that it is a loan against residential property that is Loan Against Property and that loan was taken for the purpose of pre-closure of existing loan and business expansion and Girdhari Lal Saraf signed the said application formand in the Disbursal Request Form, it is specifically submitted that they had their A/c C6331, Punjan& Sind Bank A/c No. 1502103 at Citi Bank and another account No. 12/1102 of Punjab & Sind Bank and it is proved that prior to taking this loan, complainant has failed to pay Home Loan for Rs. 9,55,394/- to Citi Bank and also other loan amount of Punjab & Sind Bank i.e. Rs. 1,46,745/- and against Home Loan, complainant’s house was mortgaged and only for the purpose of releasing the said house from the Home Loan A/c against Citi Bank and for clearing the outstanding dues of Punjab & Sind Bank, complainant paid for loan and accordingly Home Loan of the complainant lying with Citi Bank against A/c No. 1502103 was completely stopped i.e. an amount of Rs. 9,55,394/- and other interest.
This op Bank also paid outstanding dues of the complainant against the said Punjab & Sind Bank A/c No. 12/1102 i.e. Rs. 1,46,745/- as interest and in fact complainant is bound to clear up those dues to Punjab & Sind Bank and Citi Bank Loan A/c prayed for the present loan and op Bank cleared all the dues and released the house from the mortgage of the Citi Bank and actually complainant took Home Loan from the said bank that was cleared to the present op bank.
So, it is clear that about Rs. 11 lakhs were paid by the op for clearing the Home Loan account of Citi Bank and other outstanding dues of the complainant in Punjab & Sind Bank and balance amount as loan was granted because complainant prayed for loan for pre-closure existing loan and business expansion.
So, considering the document which was submitted by the complainant for getting loan is no doubt for clearing the outstanding dues for existing Home Loan which was lying with the said bank and also for outstanding dues of Punjab & Sind Bank that was paid by the complainant and house was released from the Home Loan bond accepted by the complainant infavour of the op bank and on the basis of such prayer, the present loan was sanctioned and no doubt it is not of home loan. But it is loan against property that this loan was disbursed by the op bank after taking charge of the property as security of the present loan and it is no doubt a fact that it is not a Home Loan because no property was purchased against present loan. In fact Home Loan means loan for purchasing a property. But considering the entire fact, it is found that this loan was prayed not for purchasing property. But it was prayed for expansion of business and by pre-closure of Home Loan what he took from Citi Bank and Punjab & Sind Bank.
So purpose of Home Loan has already been fulfilled and the present loan was taken by the complainant only for releasing the mortgaged property that is property from the hands of Citi Bank for whom complainant took Home Loan and considering all the above fact, it is clear that complainant’s present claim is completely false and fabricated, complainant never took any loan from the present op bank for purchasing any flat or property with the help of present loan, complainant never purchased any property and loan was not sanctioned for property, but the loan was granted for property that is residential house. So, it is not Home Loan.
Moreover considering the document of op no.2 and complainant himself admitted that he submitted all necessary papers, form duly signed and fully knew well of the terms and conditions and took this loan. But his claim is that he tried to ... Home Loan to Citi Bank the present bank but it is completely false because present Citi Bank cleared the entire Home Loan and property was released from the Citi Bank. So, it is clear that the entire complaint is full of concocted story.
Another factor is that present loan against property was sanctioned on 02.01.2006 and complainant received it and withdrew the amount and in the document of the complainant which was in the possession of the complainant, it is clear that there are specific provision that the interest rate is changeable and it is specifically mentioned and loan tenure is 144 months i.e. 12 years. No doubt loan was sanctioned on 02.01.2006.
Fact remains that complainant already pre-closed the said loan and as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement, it is found that if they want to pre-close the loan outstanding amount, lonee member shall have to pay bank pre-closure fee at the rate of 4 percent on the principal loan amount for the first 3 years from the date of final disposal and in case if any lonee member wishes to pre-close after 3 years, there will be a fee of 2.5 percent on the principal outstanding at the time of such closure and in the present case the complainant has submitted that they have not changed pre-closure fee 2.5 percent charge during pre-closure.
So, considering all the documents regarding the loan, we are convinced that practically it is a loan against property and Home Loan is pre-closure problem no doubt. But complainant took loan against property. So, it comes under the definition of Home Loan, but that does not mean for the purpose of purchasing building or flat, the loan was granted but very purpose ........-.
So, considering all the above fact, we find that there is no negligence and deficiency or any sort of deceitful manner of trade by the bank particularly in this case because all the documents which were produced by the ops are documents executed by the complainant in favour of the op. In fact complainant to create an atmosphere that he is very honest, but have not filed all the documents for which we have gathered that only to avoid further attempts complainant has filed this complaint. But we have gathered that there is no laches on the part of the op and in fact loan was properly sanctioned and it was a loan against property which is come under the scheme of Home Loan but it is not at all Home loan for two senses that means the Home Loan which was taken from Citi Bank is completely clear and complainant for the purpose of pre-closure of the Home Loan of Citi Bank and other outstanding dues of Punjab & Sind Bank took this loan and also for expansion of his business and in view of the above fact and circumstances materials we are convinced to hold that the entire complaint is full of concocted story and false assertion, only to avoid the balance payment, complainant has filed this complaint. But we have gathered that an attempt of the complainants is nothing but an attempt to avoid further outstanding dues of the op bank.
In the result, this complaint fails.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest with a penal cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
Complainants are directed to deposit the entire penal cost of Rs. 10,000/- to this Forum’s account within one month from the date of this order, failing which 9 percent interest p.a. over the same shall be assessed till full satisfaction of the same and if it is not complied by the complainants, in that case penal action shall be started against them for realizing the same as per Provision of Section 25/27 of C.P. Act 1986.
Order No. 17 / Dated 01/10/2015.
Complainant has deposited Rs.8000/- as penal cost out of imposed penal cost of Rs.10,000/- and prayed for exemption of Rs.2000/-. Prayer is allowed and complainant’s deposit of Rs.8000/- as penalty cost is accepted. Issue office voucher and balance Rs.2000/- is exempted.
