DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 321 of 21.8.2019

                                      Decided on:           1.2.2023

Naranjan Singh aged about 61 years S/o S.Bachan Singh , resident of # E-85, Punjabi University Campus, Patiala and also of MIG 415, Urban Estate Phase-1, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. State Bank of India through its Managing Director, State Bank of India, having office at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point Mumbai.
2. General Manager, State Bank of India, having its local head office at 17-A, Chandigarh.
3. Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India SCO 107-108, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh  160017.
4. Chief Manager, State Bank of India,The Mall, Patiala 147001.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi,Member         

PRESENT:                             Sh.Ashwani Kumar Bedi, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Amrinder Singh, counsel for the OPs.

1 ORDER                                        

1. The instant complaint is filed by Naranjan Singh s/o S.Bachan Singh        (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. The averments of the complainant are as follows:

That the complainant in order to buy a house, in the month of October,2003 applied for housing loan facility of Rs.3,50,000/- with OP No.1 which was granted on 21.10.2003and was paid through bank draft No.443365 dated 5.11.2003 of SBOP the Mall, Patiala. The loan amount was to be repaid in 180 monthly installments @ of 8.25% per annum i.e. Rs.3100/- per month to be withdrawn from his saving bank account No.55124676593 to his housing loan account No.55124954663. The OPs started deducting Rs.3100/- per month w.e.f. December, 2003. 15 installments of Rs.3100/-each was deduced upto 10.3.2005 except one installment of Rs.3400/-. However, lateron without instruction from complainant OPs started deducting Rs.3400/-w.e.f.5.4.2005 and as such deducted more than 66 installments of Rs.3400/- from the saving bank of the complainant. The OPs again deducted two installments of Rs.4500/-each, 15 installments of Rs.3500/-each, Rs.2500/-was deposited on 14.5.2004, 61, installments of Rs.4000/-each and Rs.12,600/-, Rs.14900/-, Rs.4550/-,Rs.13200/-, Rs.1400/-, totaling Rs.6,25,550/- was deducted from complainant’s saving bank account. Thereafter, OPs started demanding Rs.1,94,333/- from the complainant,illegally , as excess amount has already been paid to the OPs. Complainant wrote letter to the OPs to verify the account, close the loan account and to return the sale deeds and other related documents but of no avail. Again complainant wrote letters dated 19.12.2017 and 13.6.2018 to SBI RACPC Cell, Pragati Bhawan, in this regard. After retirement from his services, complainant requested SBI, The Mall, Patiala to hand over the sale deed 15296 dated 8.1.2004 and sale deed No.11038 dated 21.10.2003 after receiving balance amount if any from him as per terms and conditions so settled at the time of granting the loan but no heed was paid by the OPs rather the OPs is claiming excess amount and rate of interest as well as penal rate of interest for which Bank is not entitled. The complainant also sent legal notice upon the OPs but of no avail. There is thus not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of the complaint.

3. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement having raised preliminary objections that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and the complainant has concealed various true facts.
4. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that the housing loan applied by the complainant  of Rs.3,50,000/- was granted to him on depositing photo copy of title deed No.11038 dated 21.10.2003 and original title deed  No.15296 dated 8.1.2004 and other concerned documents as security to repay the loan amount. It is also admitted that complainant has executed housing loan agreement dated 4.11.2003 and also signed various other documents as required at the time of availing the said loan. Loan proceed of Rs.3,50,000/- was issued to the complainant through bank draft No.443365 dated 5.11.2003. EMI was deducted from saving bank account of the complainant on his instructions. It is denied that EMI was of Rs.3100/- per month. It is admitted that complainant opened aforementioned saving bank account number and received the EMI for his housing loan account number. It is submitted that EMI may vary from time to time and the same was told to the complainant at the time of sanction the loan. It is correct that the OPs started deducted EMI w.e.f. December,2003 from the account of the complainant. 15 installments of Rs.3100/- have been deducted upto 10.3.2005 and also installment of Rs.3400/-was deducted. It is denied that without instructions from complainant, bank  started deducted Rs.3400/- w.e.f.5.4.2005, as such deducted more than 66 installments of Rs.3400/- from the saving bank account of the complainant or the complainant agreed for deduction of Rs.3100/- per month or the OPs deducted two installments of Rs.4500/-, 15 installments of Rs.3500/- or amount of Rs.2500/- was deposited on 14.5.2004 or  61 installments of Rs.4000/- or Rs.12600/- or Rs.14900/-, or Rs.4550/- or Rs.13,200/-or Rs.1400/- totaling Rs.6,25,500/- was deducted from the saving bank account of the complainant to reduce the loan liability in December,2018. It is submitted that all the installments were deducted by the bank as per EMI vary from time of time as floating rate of interest is applicable to the housing loan availed by the complainant and the complainant was agreed and signed the arrangement letter dated 4.11.2003 and also term loan agreement dated 4.11.2003. It is submitted that in the account of the complainant there was no sufficient balance to deduct the loan installment, the OPs issued demand notice to the complainant but the complainant instead of depositing the repayment of the loan amount, has filed the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In support of the complaint, ld. counsel for the complainant has furnished affidavit of the complainant,Ex.CA, copies of passbooks of SB Account,Exs.C1 to Ex.C3, copy of legal notice,Ex.C4, postal receipts,Ex.C5 to C7, letter dated 19.12.2017,Ex.C8, letter dated 13.6.2018,Ex.C9 and closed the evidence.
6. In rebuttal, ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, affidavit of Binay Singla, Chief Manager, SBI, Ex.OP1 copy of application for housing loan, Ex.OP2 copy of arrangement letter, Ex.OP3 copy of agreement to mortgage, Ex.OP4 copy of guarantee agreement, Ex.OP5 copy of guarantee agreement, Ex.OP6 reply to legal notice, Ex.OP7 postal receipt and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8. Admittedly the complainant had taken loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from OP No.4 which was to be repaid in 180 EMIs  at floating rate of interest 8.25% per annum. The complainant had alleged that mandate was given for deductions of all the EMI of Rs.3100/- per month from the saving bank account No.55124676593 of the complainant. However, the complainant had alleged that the amount of installments was increased by the OPs on their own sweet will and EMIs of varying amount i.e. Rs.3400/- , Rs.4500/-, Rs.3500/-, Rs.2500/- and Rs.4000/- were deducted from his account. The complainant then requested for the closure of the loan account, vide application dated 19.12.2017, Ex.C8. Further, an amount of Rs.1,94,333/- was shown to be outstanding against the complainant on 19.12.2017. However, no fruitful action was taken by the OPs on the said request and they insisted on payment of the balance amount as above for closure of the loan account.
9. Ld. counsel for the OPs relied upon application form for housing loan which is Ex.OP1 as per which floating rate of interest on the amount of loan was applicable @ 8.25% with the condition that the bank/OPs shall be entitled at its sole discretion from time to time and at any time, without notice to the complainant to revise, vary and change the rate and /or the rests of interest  as it may deem fit and proper and application of such revised, varied and changed rate and /or rests of interest on the outstanding  loan amount shall be deemed to the sufficient notice to the complainant of such revision, variation and change which shall be binding .
10. Ld. counsel for the complainant has thus argued that the bank was well within its right to change the rate of interest from time to time with reference to the change in the mandate rights as notified by the RBI. At the time of arguments, ld. counsel for the OPs has placed on record letter dated 14.3.2018 stating therein that various installments and interest applicable thereupon were not paid by the complainant on time. However, the complainant argued that out of the installments mentioned in the said letter only 3-4 installments were pending whereas other installments have been wrongly stated by the OPs.
11. The ld. counsel for the OPs has relied upon the orders in the case titled as Syndicate Bank Vs. R.Veeranna, Civil Appeal No.972 of 1995, decided on 19.12.2002, decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein it has been held that, when the rate of interest is enhanced interms of agreement between the parties, the principles of natural justice are not attached. Enhancement cannot be invalidated on the grounds of wants of notice. In another case titled as Canara Bank Vs. V.G.Biju, Revision Petition No.970 of 2011, decided by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it has been held that the bank had not committed any deficiency in service in its services by charging rate of interest @9% against the minimum agreed rate of 7.5% per annum and which was subject to the change/increase depending upon the increase in the Prime Landing Rate (PLR). Counsel for the OPs has also placed reliance upon judgment dated 23.11.2022, passed in First Appeal No.454 of 2021, titled as ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Vishnu Bansal, by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi , wherein  it has been held that , in so far as taking consent of the complainant is concerned, we are of the considered view that the bank  was well within its rights to increase or decrease the rate of interest under the floating rate of interest provided for in the loan agreement executed between the bank and the complainant and any additional or further consent from the complainant was not required, the same having been agreed to in the loan agreement itself. There is nothing on record to show that either the bank had fixed the rates of interest in any erroneous way contrary to the principles and the guidelines applicable or had differentiated between similarly situate borrowers in this respect”
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that bank was well within its rights to change the rate of interests applicable to the complainant from time to time with change in PLR as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. The OPs are therefore, directed to revise the loan statement of the complainant and to accept the balance amount if any in suitable EMIs. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
13. Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within 30 days from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order.
14. The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work, Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President