Consumer Complaint No.68 of 2016

Date of filing:18.04.2016                                                                           Date of disposal:25.11.2016

Complainant: Anup Ray Chowdhury, S/o.Prakash Ray Chowdhury, resident of Vill.-Haripur,

                          P.O.-Balgona (R.S.), P.S.-Bhatar, Dist.-Burdwan.

-VERSUS-

Opposite Party: State Bank of India, Balgona Branch,  represented by its Branch Manager,

                               having its office at Bolgona Station  Road, P.O.-Nityanandapur, P.S.-Bhatar,

                               Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713520.

Present :  Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kr. Mandal

     Hon’ble Member :  Smt. Silpi Majumder

                  Hon’ble Member :  Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha

Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Suvro Chakraborty.

Appeared for the Opposite Party:  Ld. Advocate, Soham Som.

JUDGEMENT

This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OP as the OP has imposed interest on the balance loan amount at higher rate going beyond the contract.

The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that he obtained one agricultural loan for Rs.93,000/- from the OP in the year 2012 and at the time of disbursement of the loan an agreement was executed by and between the parties. As per the said agreement the Complainant was to pay interest upon the loan amount @7% p.a. and the total loan amount along with interest was to be repaid within 04.03.2014. The Complainant on 01.09.2015 paid a sum of Rs.38,000/- towards repayment to the OP. After such payment the remaining balance was of Rs.5,203/-. Since disbursement of the loan the OP took interest @7% p.a. till 05.10.2015. But on 09.11.2015 when the Complainant went before the OP for repayment of his loan then the OP handed over the loan statement to the Complainant and therefrom he came to learn that the OP declared balance at Rs.17,322/-. The Complainant also came to learn that the OP had enhanced the rate of interest @11.700%. Moreover where the Complainant was under obligation to pay Rs.6,545/-, but the Op instead of the said amount claimed a sum of Rs.17,322/- from the Complainant claiming interest @11.700% p.a., where as the agreed interest was @7% p.a. After getting the loan account statement the Complainant being surprised requested the OP for describing the reason but the OP neither pay any heed to his request nor disclosed the reason of the claim and imposition of interest at higher rate. The Complainant sent letter to the OP through speed post on 16.11.2015 but the OP did not bother to give any reply to him. Thereafter getting no other alternative the Complainant knocked at the door of the Department of Consumer Affairs, Burdwan, but as the Complainant did get any relief, having no alternative the Complainant had approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint has prayed for direction upon the OP for closing the loan account of the Complainant by taking Rs.6,545/- and holding  such action of the OP as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation due to mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- to him.

The petition of complaint has been contested by the OP by filing written version contending that the allegations as made out in the complaint are all false, fabricated and vexatious. The OP has denied the allegations made by the Complainant. It is mentioned by the OP that the Complainant has stated that the cause of action of the present case arose on 09.11.2015 when he came to know about the closing balance and thereafter the cause of action is continuing day by day, but according to the OP the cause of action of the present case arose on 04.03.2014, but the Complainant has failed to file the complaint within the statutory period of limitation as per the Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and above all no separate petition had not been filed by the Complainant praying for condonation of delay. Therefore this complaint is not at all maintainable being barred by limitation. It is further stated by the OP that the Complainant took the loan for Rs.93,000/- from the OP on 05.03.2013 with the condition that he will repay the said loan amount along with interest within 04.03.2014 and the rate of interest was scheduled @7% p.a. if the amount would be paid within due date and if he fails to repay the same within the stipulated date the OP reserves the right to levy a higher rate of interest as it deems fit with monthly/half yearly/yearly rest. It is mentioned by the OP that the rate of interest is subject to revision from time to time and the loanee should be cautious about changes in the rate of interest whenever the changes in SBAR rate displayed/notified at the Branch/Newspaper etc.  Such right of the OP for imposition of interest at higher rate in case of failure to repay the loan amount within stipulated date had been accepted by the Complainant by putting his signature in the arrangement letter dated 05.03.2013. the procedure of repayment of the loan amount was mentioned in the arrangement letter and it was specifically mentioned that the entire loan along with interest is to be repaid within 04.03.2014, but the Complainant has failed to abide by the said direction, which is clearly mentioned in the paragraph no-2 of the petition of complaint. As the Complainant did not repay the loan amount within due date, hence the OP has charged the enhance rate of interest over the outstanding dues as per the arrangement letter dated 05.03.2013. According to the OP as there was no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on its behalf, prayed is made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.

The Complainant by filing a petition had prayed for adopting his petition of complaint as his evidence. As the complaint petition was filed on affidavit, hence we have treated the petition of complaint as his evidence on affidavit. Similar prayer was also made by the OP and we did accordingly. Both parties have filed several documents in support of their respective contentions. The OP has filed written notes of argument with a copy to the other side.

We have carefully perused the record, documents filed by the contesting parties; WNA filed by the OP and heard argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties at length. During argument the Ld. Counsel for the OP has put much emphasis on the point that this complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation in view of the Section 24A of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 as the cause of action of this complaint arose on 04.03.2014 and this complaint filed on 18.04.2016 i.e. not within two years from the date of cause of action of this case. It is further urged by the OP that though there is delay in filing of this complaint, condonation of delay has been sought for by the Complainant by filing a separate petition under the abovementioned Section of the C.P. Act, 1986. According to the Ld. Counsel for the OP this complaint should go on this score only. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant that he got knowledge about imposition of interest at higher rate from the loan statement on 09.11.2015 and from that date as within two years this complaint was filed by him, hence question of delay in filing of this complaint does not arise at all and hence the complaint does not hit the limitation and very well maintainable. It is seen by us that admittedly at the time of disbursement of the loan amount both parties have entered into an agreement namely Arrangement Letter on 05.03.2013. In the said letter it was stated that the Complainant is under obligation to repay the entire loan amount along with interest @7% p.a. within 04.03.2014, in default of making payment within the said date the OP will be empowered to levy a higher rate of interest as it deems fit. Therefore it is clear that the Complainant got knowledge on 05.03.2013 that in case of failure to make repayment of the loan amount the OP reserves the right to levy a higher rate of interest on the loan amount/balance loan amount as the Complainant himself put his signature on the arrangement letter dated 05.03.2013 and accepted the terms and the conditions of the arrangement letter. It was also within the knowledge of the Complainant that the entire loan amount would be repaid along with interest within 04.03.2014. So though the Complainant has claimed that he got knowledge only on 09.11.2015 after obtaining the loan statement from the OP, such contention does not stand at all. We have noticed that cause of action of this complaint arose on 04.03.2014 and this complaint filed on 18.04.2016 i.e. not within the statutory period of limitation in view of the Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Not only that the Complainant did not file any petition praying for condonation of delay. Therefore in our view this complaint is barred by limitation as per the Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

In respect of merit of this complaint it is seen by us that admittedly the Complainant took agricultural loan from the OP on 05.03.2013 for Rs.93,000/- and at the time of disbursement of the loan both parties entered in to an agreement namely arrangement letter. It was scheduled that the Complainant shall repay the entire loan amount along with interest within 04.03.2014. In case of default in making repayment the OP will reserve the right to levy a higher rate of interest as it deems fit. It was also scheduled that the rate of interest will be @7% p.a. in case of repayment within 04.03.2014. Admittedly the Complainant failed to repay the entire loan amount along with interest @7% p.a. within 04.03.2014. Due to such non-payment within stipulated period the OP-had levied interest @11.700% p.a. on the balance loan amount. It is alleged by the Complainant that the OP has charged higher rate of interest than the agreed rate of interest and such claim or imposition can easily be termed as deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. In respect of such contention of the Complainant we are of the opinion that as per the condition of the arrangement letter date 05.03.2013 the OP is very much empowered to charge higher rate of interest as it thinks fit. It is true that the Complainant had accepted the abovementioned condition of the arrangement letter dated 05.03.2013 by putting his signature. So now neither the Complainant nor the OP can travel beyond the said condition of the arrangement letter. We have noticed that in view of the said condition the OP has levied higher rate of interest on the balance loan amount and in this action we do not find any deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice on behalf of the OP. Therefore in our considered view the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought for. As the Complainant has failed to prove his case, the complaint fails.

Going by the foregoing discussion hence it is ordered that the complaint be dismissed on contest, however considering the facts and circumstances of the complaint there is no order as to cost.  

                      (Asoke Kr. Mandal)        

             Dictated and corrected by me.                                                         President        

                                                                                                                    D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan

                      (Silpi Majumder)

                           Member

                   D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan

             (Silpi Majumder)                                                               (Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha)

                    Member                                                                            Member    

            D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan                                                          D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan