Consumer Complaint No. 38 of 2016
Date of filing: 14-3-2016 Date of disposal: 24-03-2017.
Present :
Sri Asoke Kr. Mandal Hon’ble President,
Sri Pankaj Kr. Sinha Hon’ble Member,
Salil Kumar Maji, S/o. Late A.M.Maji,
Vill. Santashree Pally, Rupnarayanpur,
P.O.-Achra, P.S.-Salanpur, Dist.-Burdwan,
Pin-713335 Complainant.
VERSUS
- State Bank of India, Rupnarayanpur Branch,
represented by its Branch Manager,
having its office at Rupnarayanpur, HCL Road,
Near Guruduara, P.O.- Rupnarayan Bazar,
Dist.- Burdwan, Pin-713364.
- State Bank of India,
Burdwan Main Branch, represented by its Manager,
having its office at Court Compound, Burdwan Town,
P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713101 Opposite Parties.
Appeared for the complainant : Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the O. P. No. 1 & 2 : Shoham Som.
JUDGMENT
This is a case U/s. 12 of C.P. Act for an award directing the O.Ps. to pay Rs. 22,668/-(Rs. 2,494.42/- as Fine Arrear + Rs. 2,174/- as premium of insurance + Rs.18,000/- as extra interest), to pay an interest @ 13% p.a. on excess interest deducted by them from 11.9.2006, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards mental pain, agony and harassment and to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant with an intention to take house building loan, submitted a proposal form before the O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.1 on the basis of said proposal form, sanctioned house building loan to the tune of Rs. 2,93,000/- in favour of the complainant on 6.9.2006 on condition to repay the outstanding balance of said loan account by the complainant within 20 years. At the time of sanctioning of said loan the
-2-
complainant and the O.P. No. 1 executed some agreement and documents. The O.P. No.1 issued sanctioned letter on 11.9.2006 in favour of the complainant. As per sanctioned letter the complainant has to pay 239 equal monthly installment @ Rs. 2,687/- each till the entire loan with interest is repaid. As per terms and conditions of the loan the monthly installment include interest compound was 1.75% below the SBAR (State Bank Advanced Rate). At the time of sanctioning the loan the O.P. No.1 issued a SBI Life Insurance Policy (Single Premium Policy) to the complainant after deducting a sum of Rs.15,950/- as premium of said policy on 14.11.2006 from the Savings Account of the complainant. In the month of August, 2008 after going through the loan statement it was detected that the O.P. No.1 charged more interest for several times without giving any intimation to the complainant and the O.Ps. charged severally amounts on and from 6.7.2009 on the head of ‘FINE ARREAR ADJUSTMENT DE’. The complainant by a letter requested the O.P. No.1 to take necessary steps to solve the matter but the O.P. No. 1 did not pay any heed. On several occasions the complainant requested the O.P. No. 1 also to solve the dispute verbally. Thereafter on 29.7.2010 by a letter placed request at Mumbai, to solve the dispute. In letter received on 9.10.2010, the O.P. No. 1 clarified the queries of the complainant. Such clarification is not satisfactory. The O.P. No. 1 illegally deducted amounts of Rs. 155/-, Rs. 152/-, Rs. 152/- and Rs. 1,715/- on 25.4.2008, 22.4.2009, 29.4.2010 and 20.3.2012 respectively. The complainant on 21.6.2011, 30.1.2013 and 18.10.2013 by sending letters requested the O.ps. for reliefs. Suddenly the O.P. No. 1 by sending letter dated 6.11.2013 along with a statement for the period from 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2013, intimated the complainant that they have taken up the matter for redressal. On the request of the complainant, the amount of EMI was increased from Rs.2,687/- to Rs.4,000/- and thereafter on and from 12.5.2010 said EMI was again increased. On 24.1.2014 the complainant by sending a letter to the Banking Ombudsmen made a request for redressal and on the basis of said letter a complaint being No.2589 was lodged but till this day the complainant has not received any redressal. In the month of February, 2014 the complainant received a letter dated 7.02.2014 from the O.Ps. along with statement of interest charged by them. From said document it was come to the notice of the complainant that the O.P. would pay an amount of Rs.788/- as repayment in respect of interest charged by them in advertently. But they have made no explanation regarding ‘fine arrear’ so charged and regarding deduction of premium amounts related to the insurance policy. The statement of the O.Ps. are contradictory and accordingly the same is not acceptable. The complainant filed a complaint before the Consumer Affairs Department. The O.ps. have credited an amount of Rs. 788/- in the loan account on 15.3.2014, to refund the excess interest deducted but they have not solved the dispute related to the fine arrear and Insurance Premium as stated above. So there are deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the O.Ps. and for such illegal act of the O.Ps. the complainant has been suffering and has been forced to come before this Forum. Hence this case with the prayer as mentioned above.
The O.P. No. 1 & 2 contested the case by filing single W.V. while stating inter-alia that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case, the case is not maintainable, the case is
-3-
barred by limitation and the case is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It has been further stated by these O.Ps. that the case of the complainant that the
O.P. No.1 charged more interest for several times without giving the intimation to the complainant, is false because in the sanctioned letter, it has been clearly mentioned that the rate of interest is subject to revision from time to time and the borrower shall be deemed to have notice of change in SBAR are displayed/notified at/by the Branch/published in newspaper/ made through entry of interest charge in pass book statement of account sent to etc., the bank has the option to reduced or increased the EMI or to extent the repayment period consequent upon charges in SBAR, in the event of default or any irregularity on the part of the borrower in account, the bank reserves the right to levy higher rate of interest as it deemed fit, the above matter was accepted by the complainant, so there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps., the complainant was unable to repay the entire interest of the bank on various occasions, so for the default of payment of interest the ‘fine arrear adjustment de’ was charged at the loan account, due to machinery problem there was some irregularities in interest calculation, subsequently the O.P. rectified the said matter and has refunded Rs. 788/- which was deducted as the excess amount of interest with intimation to the complainant, the complainant has received such amount of Rs. 788/- without raising any objection, the machinery problem as mentioned above was out of control of the O.P., the premium as deducted was according to the instruction of SBI Life which is the competent authority to meet allegation of the complainant but it has not been made party in this case, no evidence related to the insurance policy has been produced, on the basis of the prayer of the complainant the Banking Ombudsmen scrutinized the statement of interest rate including SBAR rate and there after they settled and closed the case with the satisfaction of the complainant, the complainant did not file any objection against the settlement of Banking Ombudsmen, so the complainant has got the redressal and for unlawful gain, the complainant has filed this case. It is, therefore, claimed that this case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
DECISION WITH REASONS
To prove his case the complainant has relied upon his evidence on affidavit, photocopies of letter dt. 9.08.2008, Term Loan Sanction letter, Certificate of Insurance, some documents executed in connection with the loan as mentioned, statements of loan account, letter dt. 6.08.2008, letter dt. 29.07.2010, replies dt. 9.10.2010 and 11.09.2006, letter dt. 21.06.2011, letter dt. 30.01.2013, letter dt. 8.10.2013, reply dt. 6.11.2013, letter written to the Bank Ombudsman dt. 24.01.2014, the letter dt. 31.03.2014 of the Banking Ombudsman intimating the disposal of the complaint lodged by the present complainant and the letter dt. 15.03.2014 of O.P. No. 1 intimating that they have credited Rs. 788/- which was charged as excess interest, to the Loan Account with statement of interest.
On the other hand the O.Ps. have adduced no evidence but they have relied upon the evidence adduced by the complainant and written argument submitted by them.
-4-
By filing this complaint the complainant has alleged that there is/was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. as they have illegally charged huge amount as extra interest, amount as Fine Arrear Adjustment De and amount as premium of insurance in the loan account. Let us see how far the complainant has been able to prove his case.
It is admitted by the contested parties that the complainant took house building loan of Rs. 2,93,000/- on 06.09.2006 from the O.P. No. 1 on condition to repay the outstanding balance of said loan account by him within 20 years in instilments.
No evidence has been adduced showing that the O.P. No. 2 is related with such loan transaction and the O.P. No. 2 is the superior authority of O.P. No. 1. So the O.P. No. 2 is unnecessary party to this case.
The complainant has stated in the complaint that in the month of August, 2008 after going through the loan statement he detected that the O.P. No. 1 charged more interest for several times without giving any intimation to the complainant. On the same breath the complainant has stated that on 24.01.2014 he by sending a letter to the Banking Ombudsmen made a request for redressal and on the basis of said letter a complaint being No. 2589 was lodged and the O.ps. have credited an amount of Rs. 788/- in the loan account on 15.3.2014, to refund the excess interest deducted but they have not solved the dispute related to the charge of Fine Arrear Adjustment De and Insurance Premium as mentioned. The O.Ps. have stated that due to machinery problem there was some irregularities in interest calculation, subsequently as per instruction of the Banking Ombudsmen, the O.P. rectified the same and has refunded Rs. 788/- which was deducted as the excess amount of interest with the intimation to the complainant, the complainant has received such amount of Rs. 788/- without raising any objection and accordingly such dispute has been redressed. During the course of argument the Ld. Advocate for the complainant has admitted this case of the O.Ps. Moreover the documents filed by the complainant support the redressal of dispute related to the interest calculation at the instance of the the Banking Ombudsmen. So at this stage this Forum has nothing to do in this matter and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this connection.
It has been further alleged by the complaint that the O.Ps. continued to charge amounts on and from 06.07.2009, on the head of ‘FINE ARREAR ADJUSTMENT DE’, repeatedly the complainant requested verbally, the O.P. No. 1 to solve the dispute but no action was taken, as such on 29.07.2010 he by a letter placed a request at Mumbai, to solve the dispute. It has been further stated that in the letter received the complainant on 9.10.2010, the O.P. No. 1 clarified the queries of the complainant but such clarification is not satisfactory and the complainant on 21.6.2011, 30.1.2013 and 18.10.2013 by sending letters requested the O.ps. for relief. The copy of Statement of Account submitted by the complainant shows that the O.P. No. 1 charged Rs. 80.20/- on 06.07.2009, Rs. 502.65/- on 07.08.2009, Rs. 487.61/- on 07.09.2009, Rs. 471.39/- on 07.10.2009, 485.00/- on 07.11.2009 and Rs. 467.57/- on 07.12.2009 on the head of ‘FINE ARREAR ADJUSTMENT DE’. The O.Ps. have brought a specific case that the complainant was unable to repay the entire interest of the bank on
-5-
various occasions, so for the default of payment of interest the ‘Fine Arrear Adjustment De’ was charged at the loan account. In view of the above the cause of action arose on 06.07.2009 for the first time and the same might be continued up to 09.10.2010. This case was filed on 14.03.2016 long after the expiry of the period of limitation. So the allegation of the complainant that the O.Ps. continued to charge amounts on and from 06.07.2009, on
the head of ‘FINE ARREAR ADJUSTMENT DE’, is barred by limitation. According the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this respect.
The complainant has brought another allegation that the O.Ps. charged amounts on several occasions as premium of insurance policy in the loan account where SBI Life Insurance Single Premium Policy was granted in favour of the complainant after deducting a sum of Rs. 15,950/- as Single Premium on 14.11.2006 from the Savings Account of the complainant. The statement of account shows that the O.P. No. 1 charged amounts as premium of said policy, on several occasions. From the side of the O.Ps. it has been stated that amounts as premium were deducted as per instruction of SBI Life which is the competent authority to meet allegation of the complainant. From the side of the complainant one photocopy Insurance Certificate has been filed. This document shows that said certificate was issued by the SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. in favour of the complainant. So SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. is the insurer and the complainant’s project was insured by said policy. No document related to the insurance policy except the certificate as mentioned, nor any document connected with the Savings Account of the complainant, has been submitted. No doubt said SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. and State Bank of India, Rupnarayanpur branch are completely separate units. O.P. No. 1 State Bank of India, Rupnarayanpur branch is not answerable for any action taken by SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. has not been made party to this case. If it is found that there is irregularity in the matter of realization of premium, it could not be said that there was/is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No. 1 State Bank of India, Rupnarayanpur branch. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. is necessary party to this case. As SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. has not been made party to this case, this case is bad for defect of parties.
In view of our above discussions, at this stage, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in the matter of allegation regarding realization of excess interest, alleged illegal charge of amounts on the head of ‘FINE ARREAR ADJUSTMENT DE’, is barred by limitation, the irregularity in the matter of realization of premium if found, it could not be said that there was/is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No. 1 State Bank of India, Rupnarayanpur branch and this case is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. So the case fails.
Fees paid is correct.
-6-
Hence, it is
Ordered
that the C.C. No. 38/2016 is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps. without any cost.
Let the copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me,
(Asoke Kr. Mandal)
(Asoke Kr.Mandal) President
President D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Pankaj Kr. Sinha)
Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
