Punjab

Sangrur

CC/97/2016

Chaman Lal Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Smt.Anjana Jindal

16 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                       

                                                Complaint No.  97

                                                Instituted on:    08.01.2016

                                                Decided on:       16.09.2016

 

Chaman Lal Singla aged about 60 years son of Haripal Singh R/O # 745, Guru Nanak Colony, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             State Bank of India, RBO, Sarhind Road, Patiala through its Regional Manager.

2.             State Bank of India, Branch Ladda Kothi, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Ms. Anjana Jindal, Adv.

For OPs                    :               Shri Kali Ram Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

               

Order by : K.C.Sharma, Member.

 

1.             Shri Chaman Lal Singla, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant obtained a house loan of Rs.11,00,000/- from the OP number 2 vide loan account number 32013565845 in January, 2011, which was disbursed to the complainant in four instalments, which was repayable in 10 years at a monthly instalments of Rs.14,000/- per month. It is further averred that the complainant was sanctioned the loan on floating rate basis at the interest rate of 10.75% per annum. It is further averred that since the date of sanctioning of the loan amount, the rate of interest has been changed from various times, but now the rate of interest has been changed and came down to 9.30% per annum, but the Ops are charging the excess rate of interest. It is further stated that when the complainant requested the Ops to reduce the rate of interest as per the terms and conditions, the OP number 2 started to demand Rs.4824/- from the complainant by stating that if he wanted to reduce the interest rate of his loan account, he will have to deposit this amount. It is further stated that nothing happened despite serving of legal notice upon the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to reduce the rate of interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OPs, it is admitted that the complainant had obtained a house loan of Rs.11.00 Lacs from the Ops in November, 2011 on floating rate of interest @ 10.75% per annum.  It is further stated that the Ops reduced the rate of interest on his loan account several times @ 10.05% per annum on his above loan account w.e.f. 5.10.2015.  It is further stated that the OP number 2 told the complainant that the bank is charging interest @ 10.05% per annum w.e.f 5.10.2015 and further informed the complainant that if he wants to avail the switch over option to current interest rate then he has to make the payment of switch over fee of 0.57% per annum. The remaining allegations of the complainant have been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of passbook, Ex.C-2 copy of passbook, Ex.C-2 copy of passbook, Ex.C-3 copy of letter dated 8.10.2015, Ex.C-4 copy of notice, Ex.C-5 postal receipt, Ex.C-6 affidavit of Chaman Lal, Ex.C-7 copy of account statement, Ex.C-8 copy of list of rate of interest, Ex.C-9 copy of letter dated 21.6.2016, Ex.C-10 copy of arrangement letter dated 1.11.2011 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of bank circular and Ex.OP-2 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the main controversy in the present complaint is with regard to the rate of interest being applied on the housing loan of the complainant. The version of the complainant is that at the time of availing the housing loan, it was agreed by the OPs to change the floating rate of interest and the Ops have been charging the floating rate of interest from time to time and now the rate of interest has become down to 9.30% per annum, but the OPs are still charging 10.05% per annum rate of interest on his housing loan account.

 

6.             The complainant in support of his version has placed on record document Ex.C-8 which is a chart of rate of interest. From the bare perusal of this document, we find that the other explanation and how the rate of interest is applicable is missing in this document,  but, when we read this chart in the light of circular Ex.OP-1, we find that it is applicable on the payment of switch over fee of 0.57% (including service tax) on the outstanding amount, subject to minimum payment of Rs.5000/-.  It is an admitted fact that the rate of interest on this loan account was floating which changes with the change of rate of interest of the bank from time to time.  At the time of advance, the rate of interest was applicable at 10.75% per annum, but the same has been changed to 10.05% per annum as per the document Ex.C-7.  So, we find that the Ops have been changing the rate of interest from time to time and now as per the document Ex.OP-1 the Ops had apprised the complainant that if the complainant wants to switch over to the current rate, he will have to pay switch over fee of 0.57% on the outstanding amount subject to minimum of Rs.5000/- as per the document Ex.OP-1 as this option was for the existing floating rate customers.

 

7.             The evidence led by the Ops corroborates their version submitted in the reply and we find that in the document Ex.OP-1 which is a Master circular for home loans, it has been mentioned under the head option for existing floating rate customers to switch over to current rate at 10.2.1 that switch over is allowed “on upfront payment of switch over fee of 0.57% (including service tax) of their outstanding amount, subject to minimum of Rs.5000/- per account.”

 

8.             So, the facts of this complaint shows that the Ops have been giving correct information based on the bank circulars, but it seems that the complainant was insisting the OPs to go against the circular document, Ex.OP-1.  It is a common knowledge that the banks and other financial institutions work as per the prescribed norms and procedures and cannot work against the extent guidelines.  So, in the present complaint, we do not find any merit and accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

 

9.             A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 16, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                  (Sarita Garg)

                                                         Member