Complaint filed on: 04-12-2010
Disposed on: 28-03-2011
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.2796/2010
DATED THIS THE 28th MARCH 2011
PRESENT
SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT
SRI.GANGANARASAIAH, MEMBER
SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER
Complainant: -
Mr.Seshadri.M.D,
S/o. Late M.Doreswami,
Aged about 52 years,
No.6, Gurukrupa, 2nd Cross,
Devappa Garden,
RMV 2nd stage, Bangalore
V/s
Opposite parties: -
1. State Bank of India,
Represented by its Manager,
Retail Assets Central processing
Centre (RACPC), Zonal office,
91/1, Opp. Copper Arch,
Infantry Road, Shivajinagar,
Bangalore-1
2. State Bank of India,
Represented by its Chief Manager, Stressed Assets
Resolution Centre, 1st Floor,
Bangalore city branch,
J.C.Road, Bangalore-2
O R D E R
SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT.,
The grievance of the complainant against the opposite parties [herein after called as OPs] in brief is, that he had availed a housing loan of Rs.29,75,000=00 from the 1st OP, which is secured debt repayable in equated monthly installments of Rs.31,553=00 each. He has repaid Rs.6,00,000=00 approximately towards the loan. As per the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore dated 7-1-2010 in petition S.A. No.604/2009, tribunal had granted two months time to the OPs to regularize and update the loan amount and also directed OP No.2 to furnish the information of amount due within 10 days. Then OP No.2 replied him on 4-9-2010 demanding to pay Rs.11,83,000=00 within two months. On 7-9-2010 he sent reply to that letter stating that the claim made is exorbitant. Then OP No.2 on 8-9-2010 forwarded statement of account to him. Then he informed about defect in the statement to the 2nd OP on 8-9-2010. That counsel for the Ops on 26-10-2010 issued a notice to him claiming Rs.34,62,081=00 and interest at 9.5% per annum. That on 4-11-2010 he sent reply to the legal notice and approached the OP to give statement of regularization as per the order Debt Recovery Tribunal. That the notice issued by counsel for the Ops claiming Rs.34,62,081=00 is erroneous. That the OPs through their letter dated 8-11-2010 demanded Rs.11,86,864=00 as against the claim of Rs.11,83,000=00 made on 7-9-2010. That the OPs have not taken into account repayment of Rs.6,00,000=00 and stated that claiming the outstanding amount of Rs.34,62,008=00 is erroneous and stated that, the Ops have not calculated interest as agreed on the basis floating rate of interest. Interest was charged initially at 9.5% per annum. Whereas subsequently it is enhanced to 11.25% per annum, which is not proper and therefore calling this acts of the Ops as deficient has claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000=00 due to loss of his reputation in the society, Rs.1,00,000=00 for mental agony and harassment and Rs.2,00,000=00 towards humiliation and illegal extortion.
2. This forum though had ordered notice to OP No.1 only, both Ops have appeared through their advocate. OP No.2 has filed version and a memo is filed on behalf of the OP No.1 adopting the version filed by OP No.2. OP No.2 in the version admitting the loan transaction between them and the complainant has further stated that the complainant had agreed to repay the loan amount in 174 equated monthly installments that prevailing interest at that time was at 9.5% per annum with monthly rests, later interest rate was subjected to revision from time to time as per RBI guidelines and stated the present rate of interest on terms loan facility is 11.25% per annum with monthly rests. That the complainant committed default in payment of installments and was irregular that some cheques issued by him were bounced. Therefore the complainant was imposed with penal rate of interest on the over due amount and stated to have filed recovery proceeding before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in case I.R.No.3658/2010 for recovery of the loan amount. The Ops have further denied that the complainant has repaid Rs.6,00,000=00 and have stated that amount of Rs.6,00,000=00 referred to was inclusive of amount of instruments which are bounced. Further stating that Rs.11,83,000=00 claimed from the complainant was the over due installments amount and total amount outstanding from the complainant was Rs.34,62,081=00. The Ops thus denying all other allegations of deficiency in their service have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the chief manager of OPs have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant alongwith the complaint has produced a copy of loan sanction order, copy of a legal notice he got issued to the Ops, demand notice issued by the Ops with copies of the statement of accounts of the complainant. Ops have produced copy of memorandum of terms of loan agreement for housing loan, copies of the loan account of the complainant, then copies of reply sent to the legal notice of the complainant. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and Ops, we have also perused the written arguments filed by the counsel for both parties and perused the records.
4. On the above contentions following points for determination arise.
1) Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have caused deficiency in their service in connection with the housing loan transaction, he had with OP No.1?
2) To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?
5. Our findings are as under:
Point no.1: In the Negative
Point no.2: See the final Order
REASONS
6. Answer on Point No.1: We have by going through the contention of the complainant found that the complainant has come up with certain general allegations of deficiency against the Ops in connection with his loan transaction, which he had availed as housing loan. The complainant by referring to the order of Debt Recovery Tribunal made in S.A. No.604/2009 dated 7-1-2010 has stated that the said Tribunal had directed OP No.2 to furnish him the amount required for regularizing and to update the loan amount within 10 days. Therefore it looks that the complainant had approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal which ordered for furnishing the amount required for regularization and to update the loan amount within 10 days from the date of the order. So, the grievance of the complainant, at that time appeared to be to furnish him the information of the amount due by him and to regularize the account. The complainant has admitted that the Ops gave statement of his account after regularizing the loan transaction, but contended it was not correct and was erroneous but has not stated how it was in-correct and erroneous. The complainant admittedly committed default in not paying the regular installments as agreed therefore such a default compelled OP No.1 to impose interest and penal interest on the over due amount. In this process of regularization of the loan account, Ops made a demand for Rs.11,83,000=00 which was not the total amount due by him but was the over due amount. The total over due amount shown by the Ops was Rs.34,62,081=00, has not been contraverted by the complainant.
7. The complainant has further contended that, he has repaid approximately Rs.6,00,000=00, but the Ops have denied it and stated that Rs.6,00,000=00 shown as repayment consisting of the cheque issued by the complainant, some of which are dishonoured. The complainant has not produced any documents or proof to prove repayment of Rs.6,00,000=00 as contended by him. The complainant nextly has contended that Ops initially agreed to charge interest at 9.5% per annum, whereas, the Ops have now charged at 11.25% per annum which is illegal. The complainant is not disputing that housing loan sanctioned to him was on the basis of floating rate of interest and not on the basis of fixed rate of interest. Under the terms of loan repayment, the complainant being a party to the said agreement agreed for revision of rate of interest as and when RBI revised the rate of interest without any notice, Ops have also stated that rate of interest is revised from time to time as per the guidelines of the RBI and present rate of interest is 11.25% per annum which has been revised in accordance with the contract and the RBI guidelines. The complainant again has not disputed the basis on which interest rate is revised by the Ops. The complainant in this complaint has failed to make out a case to prove any deficiency in the service of the Ops. The complainant being not able to substantiate his allegations and not being able to find out any specific deficiency in the service of the Ops has claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000=00 due to loss of reputation in the society, Rs.1,00,000=00 towards Mental agony and harassment and Rs.2,00,000=00 towards humiliation illegal extortion. None of the above allegations are proved for awarding compensation.
8. It is relevant it this stage to refer to a proceeding initiated against the complainant before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ops have produced a copy of the petition filed by them before the Debt Recovery Tribunal against the complainant and the surety for recovery of the loan amount in O.A.53/2011. Therefore it is evident that the Debt Recovery Tribunal which is a legally constituted forum to adjudicate upon all the disputes between the parties in connection with the bank loan, the complainant may as well raise his grievance in that proceeding which could be thrashed out conclusively. We therefore hold to hold that the complainant has failed to substantiate his allegation of deficiency in the service of the OPs. The Ops in our view have acted in accordance with the norms framed for recovery of the housing loan which do not amounts to deficiency. As the result, we answer point no.1 in the negative and hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and pass the following order:
ORDER
Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 28th March 2011.
Member Member President
