FINAL ORDER / JUDGMENT
SMT. SUKLA SENGUPTA, PRESIDENT
This petition of complaint is filed by the complainant U/s 35 of the CP Act, 2019.
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant took loan from the OP State Bank of India, Elgin Road Branch, 91B, Chowringhee Road, P.S.-Bhawanipore, Kolkata-700020. The OP sanctioned and disbursed the House Building Loan of a sum of Rs.3,63,000/- in favour of the complainant in terms of the sanctioned letter No. HL dated 30.06.2005, repayable by 180 EMIs of Rs.3,365/- each, under “Housing Loan Scheme for the Employees of the Government of West Bengal in association of State Bank of India”. The photocopy of the sanctioned is annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
The complainant further stated in the petition of compliant that the nature of the interest as it was mentioned in the sanctioned letter as “Floating Rate of Interest” in place of “Fixed Rate of Interest” as stipulated in the said Government Housing Loan Scheme. In this respect the complainant made a compliant dated 31.05.2011 to the Consumer Affairs Department, Government of West Bengal against the OP Bank. The OP Bank vide letter dated 18.07.2011 written by the Assistant General Manager, Retail Assets, Central Processing Centre, 4th Floor, Jeevan Deep, 1, Middleton Street, Kolkata-700071 has corrected such mistake and confirmed that the rate of interest of the said loan was “Fixed Rate of Interest” @ 7.5% p.a., after refunding excess interest charged to the complainant’s loan A/c till date the photocopy of letter dated 31.05.2011 is annexed as Annexure-B and photocopy of the latter dated 18.07.2011 is annexed as Annexure-C, but the OP Bank again started charging Floating Rate of Interest and the complainant again raised objection then the OP bank again refunded further excess interest of Rs.27,122/- till July, 2015. It is alleged by the complainant that surprisingly the OP bank neglected to correct the record and again charged the Floating Rate of Interest obviously higher than the fixed rate of @ 7.5% p.a. The complainant again raised objection and the OP bank again refund a sum of Rs.25,703/- in the month of September 2019. The complainant is a Government employee and she used to pay the EMI in each and every month regularly without a single failure and that was debited from her savings Salary A/c No. 31852977190 lying with the OP bank for credit to the Housing Loan A/c No.11062908305 starting from November, 2005 till October 2020. Total 180 EMIs have been recovered by the OP bank till October 2020. The photocopy of the Relevant pages of the savings A/c pass book is annexed as Annexure-D. But surprisingly the OP bank did not stop to deduct the EMI even after recovering of 180 EMI from the complainant’s savings A/c The complainant repeatedly requ4eed the OP bank not to deduct the excess the amount and to return the Title Deed which was lying with the bank as security and also requested to issue no due certificate., But the OP bank deliberately failed to comply the request of the complainant till filing of the case.
It is further case of the complainant that without having any other alternative the complainant served a notice dated 11.12.20220 U/S 6 of the RTI Act, 2005 upon the OP seeking a complete certificate true copy of the Housing loan statement from the date of opening till date that was duly received by the OP on 19.12.2020 but the OP did not reply the same. The photocopy of the notice dated 11.12.2020 is annexed as Annexure-E. The complainant served a legal notice on 01.09.2021 demanding to stop the recovery of EMIs from the complainant immediately and to refund the excess of about Rs.25,703/- which was agreed by the OP to refund in the month of September of 2019. The complainant also demanded the refund of the all excess EMIs recovered after October 2020 by the OP till date with interest, returned the original Title Deed lying with the OP as security, issued No due Certificate of the Housing Loan along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. In spite of receiving the said legal notice dated 01.09.2021 (Annexure-F), the OP did not reply the same hence the case is filed by the complainant with a prayer to give direction to the OP to stop of recovery of further EMIs from the complainant immediately,
And to refund the excess amount of interest of Rs.25,703/- which the OP was agreed to refund in the month of September 2019,
And to refund all the excess EMIs recovered by the OP after October 2020 till date with interest,
And to returned the original Title Deed lying with the OP bank,
And to issue a No Due Certificate in respect of the said Housing Loan in question,
And to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service on part of the OP for harassment, mental pain and agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/-
The OP SBI, Elign Road Branch has contested the claim application by filing WV denying all the material allegations leveled against it.
It is the case of the OP bank that the petition of complaint is misconceive one and is not maintainable in the eye of law.
It is admitted by the OP that a Housing Loan sanctioned in favour of the complainant and her husband Mr. Samar Sinha on 27.07.2005 at a fix rate of interest @ 7.5 % but due to migration problem the rate of interest was changed to @ 7.5 % from 31.05.2005 to 9 % from 05.11.2009 and again from 9.50% from 17.08.2010 to 26.09.2012 and at 12 % from 10.04.2015 it was changed at 11.5 % to 31.12.2021 and 8.90% .
On receipt of the complaint from the complainant, the excess interest of Rs. 84,110.00/- (from 05.11.2009 to 31.12.2021) calculated but actually Rs. 80,857/- was refunded from time to time to the loan account to the complainant. Thus, refund of Rs. 84110.00/- - Rs. 80,875.00/- equals to Rs. 3,235.00 is due to the complainant and observed that an excess amount of Rs. 3285.00/- has been charged due to wrong rate of interest.
On a close scrutiny of the loan account thoroughly of the complainant by the SBI RACPC – Kolkata (administrative wing of house building loan), it is found that five months EMI was not paid by the complainant from 20.07.2005 to 30.11.2005, SBI Life insurance Rs. 12775.00/- and properly insurance for Rs. 1,054.00/- which were added to the loan account of the complainant. Accordingly, the OP has refunded the excess amount of interest charge i.e. of Rs. 3,235.00 by credit to the above mentioned loan account of the borrower/complainant being No. 11062908305.
The OP further stated that on receipt of the notice from this forum, they discussed the matter with the complainant and sent a registered letter dated 31.01.2022 in this respect (annexure-A).
The OP further stated that there was no sort of deficiency in service on the part of the OP so, question of during compensation to the complainant by the OP does not arise at all.
The OP further stated that the complainant has no cause of action to file the case and she is not entitled to get any relief before this forum. Thus, the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
In view of above stated facts and circumstances, the points of considerations are as follows:-
- Is the case maintainable in its present form?
- Has the complainant any cause of action to file the case?
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief or reliefs is the complainant entitled to get?
Decision with reasons
All the points of consideration are taken up together for convenience of discussion and to avoid unnecessary repetition.
On careful perusal of the materials on record, position of law and considering the evidence on record, it appears that the case is well maintainable in the eye of law.
The case is filed within the period of limitation. This commission has got ample jurisdiction to try this case both territorial and pecuniary.
Admittedly, the complainant took the housing loan from the OP bank in the year 2005 with repayment schedule of 180 EMI @ Rs. 3,365/- per EMI with fix rate of interest 7.5% but it is also admitted fact that time to time the OP bank charged the interest in “Floating Rate” instead of “ Fix Rate” of interest.
From which it is palpably clear that there is/was sufficient cause of action to the complainant for filing this case and undoubtedly the complainant is a consumer within the ambit of CP Act, 2019 and the OP bank is the service provider.
It is alleged by the complainant that the OP bank time to time charged the interest of the housing loan in floating rate and deducted the excess amount of interest from the loan account of the complainant in spite repeated request by the complainant not to do that but again and again , the OP bank charged the floating rate of interest on the housing loan in question in the place of fixed of interest .
Under such circumstances, let us see, whether there is any sort of deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank or not.
From the evidence on record as adduced by the parties to this case, it is revealed that admittedly, the complainant took the housing loan from the OP bank in the year 2005 with repayment schedule of 180 EMIs of Rs. 3,365/- each started from the month of November, 2005 at a fixed rate of interest @ 7.5 %.
From the evidence, WV of the OP, it is found that the OP admittedly, deducted the interest on floating rate instead of fixed rate on several occasions though subsequently, they refunded the excess amount but it is alleged by the complainant in the petition of complaint that the OP bank deducted excess EMI from the complainant and also deducted excess amount of Rs. 25,703/- .
From evidence on record, it is proved that the entire loan amount has already been repaid by the complainant in 180 EMIs but the OP bank continued charging EMIs till Feb 2022 as it appears from annexure-A submitted by the OP bank along with evidence. It is palpably clear that the OP bank has deducted 182 EMIs instead of 180 EMIs.
From evidence on record of the complainant, it is revealed that the complainant on several occasion requested the OP to stop the deduction of EMI from the account of the complainant but the OP bank did not pay any heed to the complainants request and continuously deducted the same till February, 2022. Such conduct of the OP bank is nothing but the deficiency in service on its part and conduct of the OP bank caused harassment, mental pain and agony to the complainant for which the OP bank is liable to pay the compensation to the complainant as prayed for.
Under such circumstances, this commission is of view that the OP Bank is liable to refund two EMI recovered by them in excess, actually the loan amount in question was repaid by 180 EMI installments and the OP bank recovered 182 installments (Annexure-D) of Rs. 3,365/- each.
From Annexure-D, it is found that 180 EMIs has been paid by the complainant till the months of December, 2021 but the OP bank again deducted EMI on 02.01.2022 of Rs. 3365.00 and 02.02.2022 of Rs. 3365.00 which are excess amount of EMIs and the OP bank is liable to refund the amount of Rs. 6,730/- only for excess EMIs because the OP bank deducted 182 EMIs instead of 180 EMIs. So, the OP bank is liable to refund the amount of Rs. 6,730/- along with interest of Rs. 5% p.a. on the amount mentioned above.
The OP bank has caused harassment, mental pain and agony to the complainant by deducting excess EMI So, they are liable to pay compensation to the complainant along with litigation cost.
In view of discussion made above, it is held by this commission that the complainant being a consumer could be able to prove her case beyond all reasonable doubts and is entitled to get relief in part as prayed for.
All the points of consideration are considered and decided favorably to the complainant.
The case is properly stamped.
Hence,
Ordered
that the case be and same is decreed on contest in part against the OP with cost of Rs. 5,000/- .
The complainant do get the decree in part as prayed for.
The OP bank is directed to refund the amount of excess EMIs (two EMIs) of Rs. 3,365/- each in total Rs.6,730/- only along with interest @ 5 % p.a. on the amount from this date of disposal till realisation within 45 days from this date of order.
The OP is further directed to pay compensation to the complainant of Rs. 20,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- within 45 days from this date or order, i.d. the complaint will be liberty to execute the decree a s per law.
Copy of the judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for perusal.
