1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that he obtained a car loan of Rs.1,80,000/- from opposite party No.1 on 2.7.2009. At the time of granting his car loan of Rs.1,80,000/-, bank branch created equal monthly EMI of Rs.3701/-. Bank branch withdrew all monthly EMI on time to time through electronic payment from his saving account No.30812970789. On dated 22.5.2014 he decided to pay last two (July 2014 and August 2014) monthly EMIs of his car loan account No.30814659932 with Rs.3701+Rs.3701=Rs.7402/- in advance to clear the loan. When he visited in SBI bank branch, their staff management charged outstanding Rs.23,539/- towards him. He was shocked and asked for providing him statement of account. From statement of account provided by the bank, he found that SBI branch charged excessive rate of interest from the month of 6.7.2012 i.e

i) 6.7.2009 @ 8%

ii) 6.7.2010 8% to 10%

iii) 6.7.2012 10% to 14.750%

iv) 27.9.2012 14.750% to 14.500%

2. On dated 4.8.2014 SBI Aman Nagar Branch, Kapurthala sent him notice for his outstanding Rs.23,539/-. On dated 20.8.2014 SBI Aman Nagar Branch, Kapurthala sent him legal notice that he has monthly equated 60 installments of Rs.5170/-. SBI, Aman Nagar Branch, Kapurthala used security cheque which was collected by SBI Bank branch at the time of granting him loan of Rs.1,80,000/- in clearing Rs.23,000/- without prior notice of security cheque. On 17.10.2014 bank branch sent him letter of outstanding amount of Rs.14,400/- On dated 15.11.2014 bank branch sent him letter of outstanding of Rs.13570/-. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party bank to give him no due certificate and to pay Rs.1 Lac as damages.

3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contesting opposite party No1 filed a written reply pleading that loan was advanced to the complainant on 5.7.2009 and was payable in 60 installments commencing from August 2009. It is further mentioned that this car loan was advanced to the complainant under the special loan scheme termed as "SBI TML Employees Car Loan". This scheme was valid from period 1.6.2009 to 30.9.2009. As per this scheme of the opposite party, interest @ 8% (fixed) for the first year and @ 10% (second and third year). Thereafter the interest rate will be reset as per the regular rate mentioned as under:-

"Interest rate will be charged at _____% below SBAR which is currently ______% p.a with monthly rest. The rate of interest is subject to revision from time to time and the borrow shall deemed to have notice of changes in the rate of interest whenever it is due to the changes in SBAR or without change in SBAR has displaced/notified by the branch/published in newspaper/made through entry of interest change in passbook/statement of account sent to the borrower etc and the borrower are liable to pay such revised rate of interest, the bank had the option to reduce and increase the EMI or extend repayment period consequent upon changes in interest rate. In the event of a default in payment for an irregularity in account the bank reserves the right to levy a higher rate of interest as it deemed fit".

4. The bank has advanced this instant loan as per its scheme detailed above to the complainant. The complete details of the scheme were in the knowledge of the borrower/complainant. In fact, the equated monthly installments were settled at Rs.3650/- as per the loan documents for the first year. The interest rate was to increase after one year from 8% to 10% so the software/computer system had computed the installment as Rs.3701/- for first three years and for this the complainant/borrower has given the instructions to the bank for deducting the amount of installments from his saving bank account every month, being maintained with the answering opposite party and the same was being deducted in normal and usual course of banking business. The complainant was informed to regularize and clear his loan account on account of change of interest from fourth year onwards as his account was running irregular due to change of interest. The complainant has refused to accede to the request of the answering opposite party to regularize and clear his loan account to change of interest as the tenure of 60 monthly installment period stood expired on 30.7.2014. These cheques were given by the complainant in discharge of his legal liability against a debt raised by the complainant. The same can be used by the answering opposite party as and when the borrower fails to honour its commitments as regards non payment of monthly installments and interest thereon. The answering opposite party has used this cheque only for the amount due from the complainant and has not demanded any illegal amount/dues from the complainant. The complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 8.9.2014 in discharge of the liability towards the irregular amount in respect of the notice dated 20.8.2014 served on him under section 138 of the Negotiable of Instruments Act and not as alleged by him in the present complaint. The complainant at the time of depositing this amount has agreed to clear the remaining amount as early as possible. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

5. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to C3 and closed evidence.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP9 and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for opposite party No.2 closed evidence without tendering any document.

7. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

8. The dispute between the parties is regarding rate of interest. The complainant has produced letter Ex.C2 written by complainant to opposite party bank requesting the bank to rectify the rate of interest and to provide him figure of correct outstanding amount. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that loan was advanced @ 8% p.a but the bank started charging interest @ 10% and then @ 14.75% and then @ 14.50% p.a. We have carefully considered the above contentions advanced by learned counsel for the complainant. Ex.OP3 is copy of loan agreement. In the loan agreement, it is specifically mentioned that interest @ 8% is fixed for one year and 10% for second and third year and thereafter as per regular rates of interest on the amount of loan will be applied. Counsel for the complainant contended that these lines have been added in the loan agreement later on. There is nothing on record to come to this conclusion. The loan agreement appears to have been executed at the same time. Each page of the loan agreement is signed by the complainant. So as per loan agreement, bank was entitled to interest @ 8% for first year and then @ 10% for the next two years and thereafter as per regular rates of interest. So opposite party No.1 bank has charged the interest at the agreed rate. Counsel for the complainant has failed to show, if the interest charged by the opposite party No.1 bank is excess of the interest at agreed rate. As per statement of account Ex.OP4, some amount is still due from the complainant towards loan amount. So the opposite party No.1 bank can not be directed to give no due certificate to him. Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank.

9. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.