DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.256/2010
Sh. Jagdish Singh Chauhan
A-402, Sector-10/33, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075 ….Complainant
Versus
State Bank of India
through Asstt. General Manager (RACPC)
8th Floor, New Delhi Main Branch Building
11, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-11001 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 22.04.10 Date of Order : 18.10.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Complainant’s case, in nutshell, is that he was sanctioned a car loan of Rs.3 lacs for purchasing Esteem LXI Car No.DL9C-L1099 at the interest rate of 7.5% per annum by the OP and he had to repay the loan amount in monthly installment of Rs.5940/- each but the OP enhanced the rate of interest without any information to him and deducted Rs.200/- + Rs.200/- on 10.02.10 and Rs.50/- + Rs.50/- on 14.03.10 from his saving bank account. When he did not get any response from the bank or its AGM, RACPC the Complainant has filed the present complaint for directing the OP to allow him to clear his loan account finally @ 7.5% interest.
OP in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the agreed rate of interest being 7.5% was not agreed upon as the interest charged on car loan is always floating rate and is subject to change from time to time; that the Complainant and his guarantor Mr. Rajeev K. Chauhan received and signed on 28.09.05, in token of acceptance of terms and conditions of the loan sanctioned by the OP and to be availed by the Complainant, OP’s letter dated 22.09.05; that the loan documents on these agreed terms and conditions were signed and executed by the Complainant and his guarantor before the car loan of Rs.3 lakh was disbursed to the Complainant. According to the OP, a true copy of the letter dated 22.09.05 is Annexure R-1. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
In the rejoinder, the Complainant has stated that even from a perusal of Annexure R-1 it becomes clear that repayment was to be made in fixed 60 EMIs of Rs.5940/- only and not more or less amount.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the hand, affidavit of Sh. Rajesh Punhani, AR/AGM has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the Complainant in person and have also gone through the record.
We straightaway come to the terms and conditions which governed the grant of loan in question. The same are contained in document CL/10819736707 dated 22.09.05. We mark it as annexure R-1 for the purposes of identification. The same has been signed by the Complainant, his guarantor and also by some officer of the OP bank. Thus, it is a duly signed legal contract/agreement between the parties. Parties cannot travel beyond the terms and conditions contained in Annexure R-1. In the contract, the repayment was to be made in 60 EMIs of Rs. 5940/- each. This fortifies the contention of the Complainant that he had to pay the loan amount alongwith interest in 60 EMIs of Rs.5940/-.
However, one clause of the contract should not be read into isolation. It has to be read with other relevant portion/conditions contained in the contract/agreement. Provision of floating rate of interest has been made in the agreement/contract which authorizes the OP bank to revise the rate of interest from time to time and the borrower shall be deemed to have notice of changes in the rate of interest whenever the changes in SBAR are displayed/notified at/by the branch/published in the newspapers/made through entry of interest charged in the passbook/statement of account sent to the borrower etc. The OP bank has been given the option to reduce or increase the EMI or extend the repayment period subsequent upon changes in SBAR. Thus, if the repayment clause is read with floating rate of interest clause it will prove that the OP bank had infact given the car loan of Rs. 3 lacs to the Complainant on floating rate of interest and, thus, had the option to reduce or increase the EMI or repayment period consequent upon changes in SBAR. Therefore, by increasing the rate of interest in the present case the OP acted within the four corners of agreement/contract and did not travel outside the contract. Therefore, we hold that the OP did not commit any deficiency
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 18.10.2016
