HON’BLE SUDIP NIYOGI PRESIDENT FACTS The fact leading to the complaint, in brief, is that complainant as a co-borrower along with his son availed an educational loan of Rs.7.50 lakh from SBI RACPC (Retailed Assets Central Processing Centre) on 16/07/2007 with interest @ 1% above the State Bank Advance Rate (SBAR) with monthly rest and the said amount was disbursed through loan account No.30203869466 at SBI, Pikepara Branch, P.S- Tala, Kolkata- 700037. According to him, as the monthly interest on the said loan having been serviced by him regularly during its moratorium period, the said loan became eligible for reduction of interest @1% over its entire tenure. Following an application dated 23/11/2009 by him OP reduced the interest rate by 1% on 26/11/2012 with prospective effect. As a result, according to the Complainant, interest had been overcharged by 1% during the period from 16/07/2007 to 25/11/2012 against which an amount of Rs.46,161 was refunded to them. Further, the Complainant claimed that the said amount of refund was arrived at on simple interest basis while 1% interest was charged on compound interest basis during that period and as a result, there was short refund of Rs.19,087/- and SBI RACPC i.e. the OP refused to pay the said amount of short refund and kept harassing them with repeated phone calls and legal notices. So, the Complainant was forced to pay fully the demand made by the OP and he paid Rs.13,000/- and Rs.6,087- on 06/12/2018 and 10/12/2019 respectively to close the loan account. Though the Complainant persistently asked the opposite party to provide him the statement of his loan account showing chargeable monthly interest re-calculated at the applicable rate of interest (SBAR) over its full tenure which can reveal the extent of short refund made to them. Opposite party by a letter dated 01/10/2019 offered to calculate once again the chargeable monthly interest if the complainant gives consent to recover the excess amount refunded to him through such exercise. Complainant unconditionally accepted the said offer of the opposite party by a letter dated 21/12/2019. But thereafter, no response was forthcoming from them. So, complainant filed the instant case praying for issuing a direction upon the opposite party to provide a statement of his loan account showing chargeable monthly interest, re-calculated at the applicable interest over its full tenure and if the statement shows excess refund had been made to the complainant, opposite party would be free to recover such extra refund together with interest from them and if the statement reveals short refund had been made, opposite party be given a direction to pay the amount of such short refund together with interest @10% p.a. This apart, Complainant prayed for a penalty of Rs.20,000/- for harassment and mental agony etc. Opposite party contested the case by filing a written version and adducing evidence. All the allegations of the Complainant were denied by them. They also claimed that the loan account turned NPA on 28/10/2018 due to non-payment of EMI on regular basis and subsequently, the said account was downgraded to Doubtful Category as the borrower defaulted and legal notice was issued to the Complainant for regularization of the loan account. The loan account of the Complainant was liquidated by him on 10/12/2019 with full satisfaction and without any protest or demur thereby ending all relationship with the Opposite Party in this regard. So, after the said date of 10/12/2019, borrowers are not the consumers of the bank. Therefore, this complaint is not maintainable against the Opposite Party. They also admitted to have refunded Rs.46,161/- towards excess interest. The point for consideration is whether Complainant is entitled to relief(s) as prayed for in this case. FINDINGS Admittedly in this case, an educational loan of Rs.7.5 lakh was sanctioned by the OP in favour of Kumar Aditya Roy, the son of the Complainant who was also a co-borrower of the said loan and the said loan was disbursed through the loan account no. 30203869466 at SBI Paikpara Branch, P.S. – Tala, Kolkata – 700037. The rate of interest was 1% p.a. above State Bank Advance Rate (SBAR) with monthly rests. It is further admitted that the said loan account was subsequently closed on payment of the dues by the Complainant. It is contended by the Complainant that as he paid regularly the monthly interest of loan during the moratorium period, the said loan became eligible for reduction of interest rate by 1% p.a. over its entire tenure. His son had written to SBI (OP) on 23.11.2009 to reduce interest by 1% p.a. and such reduction was made by SBI on 26.11.2012 with prospective effect. According to the Complainant the interest had been overcharged by 1% p.a. during the period from 16.07.2007 to 25.11.2012 and such excess interest had been charged on compound basis during post moratorium period i.e. 01.02.2010 to 25.12.2012. But, the refund of excess interest was made by the OP on simple interest basis and this resulted in short refund of excess interest charged till 25.11.2012. The interest had been overcharged by 1% p.a. during the period from 16.07.2007 to 25.11.2012 against which the OP refunded them Rs.46,161.00/- only. The contention of the Complainant that the said 1% interest charged in excess during that period was on compound interest basis and the said amount of refund was made by the OP on simple interest basis. So, he alleged that there was short refund of Rs.19,087/- only. It is further contended by the Complainant that as there was repeated phone calls and legal notices issued, they were forced to pay fully the demand made by the OP to close the loan account, though his grievances were not redressed. It is found from the statement of loan account produced by the OP that on 01.06.2015 the amount of outstanding loan was Rs.11,344/- and the said amount was the last EMI. But, according to Complainant the said amount actually represented the amount of overcharged interest on the loan as he already paid the entire principal amount and interest thereon at chargeable rates. He also sent a letter dated 05.06.2015, requesting refund of the excess interest. The said letter was also accompanied by a print out copy of a spread-sheet showing detailed calculation of interest on the loan account based on applicable rates of interest from time to time as claimed by him. But, no reply was given by the OP to that letter and this amount is found to have turned NPA subsequently. In this regard, we find that the OP in their replies to the questionnaire of the Complainant admitted simple interest was charged during the moratorium period and compound interest was charged during post moratorium period. In his query no.2, Complainant wanted to know if the OP would admit the computation of refund of 1% extra interest charged during the post moratorium period i.e. from 01.02.2010 to 25.11.2012 was made on simple interest basis. But the OP is found to have evaded giving specific answer to this question. We further found that OP in their evidence on affidavit claimed that extra amount was refunded to the Complainant but they failed to specify the amount of such extra refund of interest and also the reason as to why they did not recover the amount of such extra refund. It is also found that though one statement of account was provided to the Complainant, but OP did not provide any statement of account showing chargeable monthly interest at applicable rates which Complainant actually prayed for. OP claimed that as the Complainant voluntarily paid the outstanding amount to close the loan account on 10.12.2019 the relationship of the Complainant and the Bank as borrowers ended after the date and, therefore, the Complainant as borrower cannot claim as a “Consumer” of the Bank. So, the instant complaint is not maintainable against the OP under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The OP admitted also to have refunded Rs.46,161/- in total by making payment on different dates. In this regard, we find the OP claimed that they offered to calculate against the chargeable interest before closer of the loan amount, but the Complainant remained silent and close the said account on 10.12.2019 with full satisfaction and all on a sudden on 21.12.2019 he raised for accepting the said proposal of fresh calculation of interest in anticipation of his plea to reopen the closed chapter and the Complainant is not entitled to do so. In this case, Complainant prayed, inter alia, for a direction on the OP to provide him a statement of the said loan account showing chargeable monthly interest recalculated at the applicable interest over its full tenure with effect from 16.07.2007 to 10.12.2019 and thereafter if the OP found extra refund of interest was made, they can recover the same with interest from the Complainant and if it is found there was short refund, OP to pay the amount of short refund with interest to the Complainant. Here admittedly the Complainant was a ‘Customer’ of the OP in respect of the loan sanctioned by the Bank in his favour though the account was closed by making payment of the outstanding dues of the Bank, but before doing so, the Complainant had raised veritable dispute regarding the interest charged upon the loan. So, without redressing the grievance of the Complainant in respect of the amount of the interest charged by the Bank, following the repeated demands and legal notices, the Complainant was forced to close the loan account by making the payment, though he is found to have maintained all through that there was short refund of excess interest and this act of making payment in full by the Complainant cannot take away his right to come before this Commission for getting redressal of his grievance. So, on going through the entire materials on record and considering the contention of the opposite party and following the discussions made hereinabove, we think that the complainant is entitled to relief in this case. Accordingly, the instant complaint should be allowed. Hence, it is ORDERED That the instant complainant is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party. Opposite party is directed to provide a statement of loan account of the complainant bearing No. 30203869466 of which the complainant was a co-borrower, showing chargeable monthly interest recalculated at the applicable rate of interest over its full tenure from 16/07/2007 to 10/12/2019. If the statement so made reveals excess refund made to the complainant, opposite party would be free to recover the such extra refund together with prevailing rate of interest from the complainant. If on the other hand, it reveals short refund of excess interest, the opposite party to pay the amount of such short refund together with interest. This apart, opposite party to pay cost of litigation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) to the complainant. Opposite party to comply with this order within 30 days from the date of this order failing which, the complainant shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Dictated and corrected by me President | 
