Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/49/2016

Roop Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh G.S Saini

19 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 49 of 2016

                                                                                                            Date of institution : 13.05.2016                                                                                                                                                    Date of decision    : 19.05.2017

Roop Singh Son of Sh. Deep Singh resident of H.No.128, Pearl Enclave, Fatehgarh Sahib, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. State Bank of Patiala, Branch Mini Secretariat(Administrative Block), Fatehgarh Sahib through its Branch Manager.
2. Divisional General Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Pargti Bhavan, Phase-III Urban Estate, Patiala District Patiala.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                           

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                         

 Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :  Sh. G.S.Saini, Adv. counsel for the complainant.        

                    Sh.Vinay Sood, Adv.Cl. for the Opposite parties.

 

 

 ORDER

 

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                      Complainant, Roop Singh Son of Sh. Deep Singh resident of H.No.128, Pearl Enclave, Fatehgarh Sahib, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties(hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                   The complainant availed a house loan facility from OP No.1, vide loan account No.65072133921, at the rate of 8% p.a. interest. The installments of the said loan were paid by wife of the complainant. The whole amount of loan has been paid including up to date interest. From the statement of account, the complainant came to know that OP No.1 has charged 15% p.a. interest for some months and also charged 11.75% p.a. interest, which is beyond the agreement/commitment. Moreover, OP No.1 never informed the complainant regarding increase of rate of interest nor it took any consent from the complainant. The complainant lodged a complaint through SMS to OP No.1, vide reference No.823032015, but OP No.1 never gave any reply to said complaint nor settled the matter till date. The routine maximum rate of interest is 10.25% p.a.  The complainant also sent reminder regarding the said complaint through SMS on 06.08.2015  and also approached OP No.1 and requested to settle the matter but in vain. At the request of the complainant, OP No.1 issued the agreement letter-cum-housing finance to the complainant in the month of September 2015 and the complainant was surprised that OP No.1, without the consent of the complainant, inserted some handwritten lines in para No.4 and 5 regarding rate of interest, which is against the law. Moreover, the column of floating rate of interest is vacant in the said agreement. The complainant also served a legal notice on the OPs to refund the excess amount deposited by the complainant but all in vain. The OPs transferred Rs.4594.49 P in the account of the complainant after service of the legal notice. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund the excess amount deposited by the complainant along with interest, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for damages, Rs.1000/- for costs of harassment and Rs.5500/- as counsel fee, Rs.500/- as misc. expenses etc.

3.                   The complaint is contested by the OPs, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint, OPs raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complaint is misuse and abuse of the process of law; the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious; the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint. As regards the facts of the complaint, the OPs stated that complainant had approached OPs for grant of house loan in the year 2009. The loan was sanctioned on 14.10.2009 under Easy Home Loan Scheme. As per the said scheme the rate of interest was fixed for first three years and after three years it was to be switched to floating rate of interest at prevailing House Loan Rate Linked with BPLR with monthly rests and the option  was given to the borrower to opt for prepay the loan without prepayment penalty. As per the Government Policy/RBI, the BPLR was discontinued w.e.f. 01.07.2010 and instead Base Rate was introduced. In the case of complainant, the rate of interest was switched to floating rate linked with BPLR. The rate of interest was to be charged with effect from 14.10.2012 at the rate of 11.75%(i.e. 3.25% below BPLR, which on the relevant date was 15%).  The BPLR of the bank as per the bank circular No.PSB/PNS/41/11-12 dated 18.08.2011 was 15%, which is still in force till date. The rate of interest of 15% was charged from the complainant due to some problem in the system w.e.f 14.10.2012 to 10.01.2013. The excess interest charged was Rs.4594.49p, which has been credited to the account of the complainant on 23.10.2015. The excess amount charged has already been credited to the account of the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                   In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, attested copies of documents i.e. account statement Ex. C-2(containing pages No.1 to 12), emails Ex.   C-3 & C-4, agreement Ex. C-5, legal notice Ex. C-6, reply to legal notice Ex. C-7 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Kamal Kishor Singh, Branch Manager, Ex. OP-1, true copies of documents i.e. reply Ex. OP-2, statement of account Ex. OP-3, letter of the arrangement Ex. OP-4, copy of circular dated 18.08.2011 Ex. OP-5, circular dated 01.09.2009 Ex. Op-6, reply dated 20.10.2015 Ex. OP-7 and closed the evidence.

6.                    Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the main controversy involved in the present case is that after payment of the entire home loan, it came to the knowledge of the complainant after going through the account statement(colly)EX.C-2 that OP No.1 had charged 15% p.a. interest for some months and also charged 11.75% p.a. interest, which is beyond the agreement/commitment where the rate of interest p.a was only 8%. Learned counsel pleaded that it has been admitted by OP No.1 in its written version that the said over charged amount was re-credited in to the account of the complainant. He argued that it is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complainant deserves to be compensated for the same.

7.                   On the other hand, Learned counsel for the OPs submitted that the rate of interest of 15% was charged from the complainant due to some technical problem in the system w.e.f 14.10.2012 to 10.01.2013. He stated that excess interest charged was Rs.4594.49p, which had been credited to the account of the complainant on 23.10.2015 and the OPs cannot be held responsible as the same was charged due to system error. Learned counsel argued that no deficiency in service had been committed by the OPs as it was not charged manually and it was due to fault in the computer system.

8.                   After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence, written as well as oral submissions, it is established from the account statement Ex. C-2(colly), emails Ex. C-3 & C-4 and agreement Ex. C-5 that the OPs had charged 15 % interest w.e.f 14.10.2012 to 10.01.2013 amounting to Rs.4594.49p and it is a admitted fact. The OPs while refunding a sum of Rs.4594.49p after realizing their fault did not even pay interest on the refunded amount.

9.                   Accordingly, in  view of aforestated discussions, we are of the opinion that due to negligent act of the OPs the complainant was over charged and no interest was even paid while refunding the said amount. Hence the OPs committed deficiency in service. Thus we direct the OPs to pay 18% interest p.a on the refunded amount of Rs.4594.49p from 14.10.2012 to the date of refund of the overcharged amount i.e. 23.10.2015. We also find complainant is entitled to compensation on account of mental agony, harassment amounting to Rs. 10,000/- alongwith litigation cost of Rs.5000/-. Hence the present complaint is hereby allowed.

10.                 The OPs are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt certified copy of this order, failing which the OPs shall be liable to pay 9% interest per annum on the cost awarded from the date of order till actual payment.

11.                 The arguments on the complaint were heard on 05.05.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:19.05.2017

(A.P.S.Rajput)       

President

 

(Inder Jit)          

  Member