The Complainant is working under M/s. Birla Tyres situated at Balasore vis-a-vis is the S.B Account holder with O.P No.1 in as much as has fiscal transaction with the O.P No.1. Therefore, the Complainant is a Consumer within the meaning & definition of Section-2 (d) of the special act like Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The Petitioner’s case, in brief, is that he had availed a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs) only during the year 2004 at the rate of 8.25 % interest per annum from O.P No.1 for the purpose of construction and repair the damaged house caused due to Super Cyclone in 1999. An agreement was executed between O.P No.3 and O.P No.1, where O.P No.3 would have to send wages of the Petitioner to O.P No.1 till the repayment period of the said loan i.e. for 120 months. Another agreement was also executed by the Complainant before sanction of the loan is that rate of interest would be changed from time to time and O.P No.1 shall be deemed to have noticed of changes, whenever the changes arise to the Complainant or to the O.P No.3. The Complainant is also obliged and agreed to abide by the rule and regulation of the said agreement. The Complainant read, understood and signed in the agreement paper to repay the prevailing interest and the changing rate of interest within the stipulated period of 120 installments or i.e. 10 years. The said repayment of loan was made by deducting the loan installments from the savings account of the Complainant i.e. S.B A/c No.10541695504. But, the O.P No.1 has been deducting more installments from S.B A/c of the Complainant beyond 10 years without any intimation to the Complainant or to O.P No.3 in this effect. Such type of activities of O.P No.1 is illegal and unjustified in the eyes of Law. Hike of interest is not intimated to O.P No.3, if intimated earlier, the O.P No.3 would have been remitted to O.P No.1 the hike amount of loan installments in quarterly, half yearly or yearly rest to be kept in separate column for recovery. As a result, the loan amount of the Complainant has increased to huge amount, which is the gross negligence of services and improper communication by O.P No.1.
The Complainant’s prayer for directing the O.P No.1 for refund of loan installments already debited from S.B A/c No. beyond 120 months and to stop future loan installments deductions from the said S.B A/c, along with compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation also.
Written version filed by the O.P No.3 through their Advocates, where they have challenged about maintainability, proceeding, tenability, necessary/ proper Party & more over a Consumer.
But true state of affair is that the Complainant (Workmen of O.P No.3) directly approached to O.P No.1 & 2 to avail a flood loan, where they agreed to sanction subject to execution of the loan agreement & other documents. As per terms & conditions of the loan agreement, the Complainant approached the O.P No.3 to remit his monthly salary to the said Bank till his loan is liquidated. The Complainant also submitted an undertaking/declaration in writing to O.P No.3 to this effect. The undertaking/declaration submitted by the Complainant, the O.P No.3 sent their consent to the Bank. The O.P No.3 has also given consent to the Bank that they will not remit monthly salary of the Complainant to any other Bank till gets a “No objection Certificate” from the Bank i.e. O.P No.1 & 2. On the basis of such commitment, the O.P No.1 & 2 sanctioned flood loan to the Complainant, besides this, the O.P No.3 has no personal knowledge about the mode of realization of loan dues by O.P No.1 & 2. The present dispute raised by the Complainant is against O.P No.1 & 2 only. As such the O.P No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation to the Complainant & this case bears no merit, hence the same is liable to be dismissed against O.P No.3.
Further, written version submitted by the O.P No.1 & 2 through their Advocate, where they have also challenged about cause of action, maintainability and legality.
But it is a fact that the Complainant had availed a term loan for Rs.3.00 Lacs on 05.10.2004 as per his loan application dt.22.09.2004 for house repair from O.P No.1, as per terms & conditions of the agreement dt.05.10.2004, by agreeing the same agreement. The loan was disbursed and the loan proceeds was utilized by the Complainant. “The loan is to be repaid in 120 Equated Monthly Installments (EMIs) of Rs.3,640/-. The number of EMIs may increase/vary if the entire loan with interest, cost, charges and expenses is not repaid by/with the stipulated no. of EMIs by reason of increase in the rate of interest or otherwise. The EMIs will have to be paid till the entire loan with interest is fully repaid”.
In this connection, the O.Ps-Bank states that the Complainant-Borrower has suppressed the material facts and presumably misconceived or misunderstood the above contractual obligations contained in Loan Sanction Letter. Therefore, the Complainant is obliged and bound to follow the strict terms of contractual obligations under Bank norms and business practice of the O.Ps-Bank. In the instant case, in fact the rate of interest having been changed from time to time as per directing of RBI the stipulated no. of EMIs has increased and rightly charged and credited to his loan account, which has been correctly reflected in the statement of account.
Moreover, as per terms under Para-5 of Personal Loan Agreement “The Bank shall be entitled to increase or decrease the amount as well as the no. of EMI which comprises of Principal and interest at its sole discretion either on account of change in interest rate or otherwise and the Borrower undertakes to pay EMI as determined by the Bank till the time the entire loan together with interest and other unpaid penalty, costs, charges and expenses is repaid”.
In view of the above circumstances, the dispute against the O.Ps-Bank being frivolous and vexatious, the complaint be dismissed with exemplary costs.
Complainant went un-represented and also absent on repeated calls. Heard the case from the Ld. Counsel for O.Ps. Upon perusal of materials available on record, what we noticed is that the Complainant, who availed a loan from O.Ps-Bank for house repair and damage caused to his house due to Super Cyclone during 1999 and being a limited income worker in O.P No.3, unable to repay the loan amount of O.Ps-Bank, if any. Hence, the Order:-
O R D E R
Under such circumstances, the O.P-Bank shall find out ways and means from any provisions made available with them to extend towards closure of the loan account of the Complainant. With this directions to O.P No.1 & 2, the Complainant is disposed off.
Pronounced in the Open Forum this day the 28th day of July, 2016 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
