BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 5^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. It is the complaint under Section 35 and Section 83 of C.P.Act, 2019 for the following reliefs:-

 (a) Direct the OP to revise the CIBIL date and remove the label as defaulter in CIBIL record of complainant by striking the non-payment/delayed payment details with respect to loan account No.010000038077294614.

(b) Direct the OP to execute an indemnity to the complainant that they will indemnity the complainant for the loss that will be caused till the completion of correction in the CIBIL record of the complainant.

(c) Direct the OP to take over the home loan No.H404HHL0403802 taken under Bajaj Housing Finance Limited to the OP bank as per the minimum prescribed interest under State Bank of India under floating interest rate under balance transfer option without any processing fees or any other charges.

(d) Direct the OP to reimburse the deficiency in the interest charges from State Bank of India to Bajaj Housing Finance Limited from the date of commencement of loan account No.H404HHL0403802 which is from 02.12.2020 to the date of actual transfer of the loan to State Bank of India as per the prayer made in para 3.

(e) Direct the OP to refund the charges of processing fee and other administrative charges Rs.46,199/- in procuring Home Loan account No.H404HHL0403802 as these charges are not incurred in case of loan is availed with Nationalized Banks or with the OP

(f) Direct the OP to prove the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the agony, humiliation, loss of respect and service deficiency caused by act of OP to the complainant.

(g) Direct the OP to refund the Rs.66/- collected as interest in excess in loan account No.00000038077294614.

(h) Direct the OP to provide the cost of this litigation in the extent of Rs.10,000/-.

(i) Any other order in the interest of justice and equity as deem fit to be proper.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant has availed consumer loan of Rs.9,199/- from the OP and agreed to repay the loan in monthly equal installments from 19^th December, 2018 to 19^th May, 2019.  Even though, the complainant had sufficient balance in his saving bank account with OP.  The OP failed to deduct EMI of Rs.1,597/- for the month of May, 2019.  OP update4 the CIBIL record of the complainant as willful defaulted in loan account No.00000038077294614.  It is further case of the complainant that after repeated persuasion and in response to his complaint dated 20^th June 2019, OP informed him that issue has been resolved by letter dated 17^th July 2019.

3. The Nationalized banks including OP bank refused to advance loan at lower rate of interest.  Therefore, he was post a take loan from other bank at higher rate of interest.  This act of the OP amounts to deficiency of service.  Hence, this complaint.  OP has collected Rs.66/- excess interest from his loan account.

4. Despite receipt of notice, OP failed to appear before this Commission and OP has been placed exparte.

5. The complainant files his affidavit evidence and relies on 12 documents. 

6. Heard the arguments of the complainant.

7.  The following points arise for our consideration as are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

8. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  Affirmative in part.

      Point No.2: Affirmative in part

      Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

9. Point Nos.1 and 2:  The complainant claims nine reliefs including cost of litigation from the OP.
10. It is proved from the allegations made in the complaint, affidavit evidence of the complainant that the complainant has S.B.Account with OP Bank and availed loan of Rs.9,199/-.  It is also proved that the OP bank has debited five monthly installments at the rate of Rs.1,597/- from 19.12.2018 to 19.04.2019.  Even though, the first installment of Rs.1,597/- was to be debited to the S.B. account of the complainant on 19.05.2019.  The copy of the bank statement of S.B. account of the complainant indicates that the complainant had credit balance of Rs.5,215.45 on 19.05.2019 and he had credit balance of Rs.10,215.45 on 26.05.2019.  But, OP instead of debiting Rs.1,597/- to the S.B. account of the complainant on 19.05.2019 was please to deduct Rs.1,649/- only on 13.08.2019 including interest of Rs.66/-.  The OP failed to debit Rs.29/- as interest and also failed to debit Rs.1,597/- on 19.05.2019 despite the complainant had credit balance in his S.B. account.  This belated recovery of last installment including Rs.66/- as interest amounts to deficiency of service.  The complainant has right in saying that the OP committed delay in deducting last installment of Rs.1,597/- and wrongly recovered Rs.66/- as interest without fault of the complainant.
11. The complainant has stated in para 14 that OP decline to provide home loan stating that CIBIL score is less than 750. Whereas CIBIL score and report dated 10.11.2020 indicate that the CIBIL score of the complainant was nearing to 900.  The CIBIL score and report indicate that complainant has no credit activity in the least three years and there was no credit exposure.  Therefore, complainant is not right in saying that the OP has shown his CIBIL score less than 750.
12. On 19^th November, 2020, the customer care of the OP informed the complainant that his complaint will be resolved within 10 days.  Later, on 19^th December, 2020 the complainant had sent a letter for rectification of error in the CIBIl.  But, complainant has not produced any CIBIL score showing less than 750.  However, the customer care of the OP informed that CIBIL score effected without the fault of the complainant.  Even this message is taken into consideration, there is no record to show that the CIBIL score of the complainant was less than 750 as stated by the complainant in para 14 of his complaint and affidavit evidence.
13. It is another contention of the complainant that the Nationalized Banks including OP who are charging lessor interest, failed to advance the loan and he was forced to take home loan from Bajaj Finserve at Higher rate of interest.  The complainant has not produced any document to show that he had approached the Nationalized Banks including OP bank for advancing bank loan and these banks refused to advance home loan.
14. The complainant by submitting loan application and entering loan agreement dated 18.11.2020 with Bajaj Finservice availed loan of Rs.90,53,601/-.  According to Annexure-12 payment schedule, agreed to rate of interest was 7.1% charged by Bajaj Finserve.  Whereas, Annexure-A indicates that home loan interest for salary borrower was floating rate at effective rate between reference 7% to 12%.  The complainant has not produced any document to show that the rate of interest for similar housing loan either in the OP bank or any Nationalized bank was less than 7%.  It is not the case of the complainant that he availed home loan as a self employed borrower.  Therefore, complainant is not right saying that the was forced to take home loan at higher rate of interest from Bajaj Finserve.  Even though, complainant claims Rs.46,399/- as a refund process fee.  When the home loan rate of interest at Bajaj Finserve is lesser than OP bank, the complainant has not incurred any loss as higher rate of interest.  The complainant has not produced any documents to show that he has paid administrative charges of Rs.46,399/-.  It is not a case of the complainant that he was not liable to pay any administrative charges, if such a home loan advanced by the OP bank.  Therefore, complainant is not entitled to refund of process charges of Rs.46,399/-.
15. The complainant seeks direction against the OP to take over home loan from Bajaj Housing Finance Ltd.,  When complainant has not placed any evidence that he had requested OP bank to take over loan advanced by Bajaj Housing Finance Ltd., and OP bank refused to do so.  More over, there is no document to show that Bajaj Housing Finance Limited agreed to transfer the loan of the complainant to OP bank on the basis of request of OP bank.  Therefore, complainant is not entitled to prayer No.3.
16. The complainant claims Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.  Even though charging of Rs.66/- interest is illegal for which the OP is liable to pay nominal compensation not Rs.1,00,000/- claimed by the complainant.
17. It is proved that OP bank failed to recover last installment of Rs.1,597/- with interest by debiting the S.B account of the complainant having credit balance, this act of the OP amounts to deficiency of service.  Under such circumstances, it is proper to award compensation of Rs.5,000/-.  The complainant claims cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-.  The value of the service is less than Rs.5,00,000/- and complainant has not paid any court fee.  The complainant himself conducted the case.  Therefore, it is proper to impose Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation.
18. Point No.3:- Having regard to the discussion made in the preceding paragraph, the complaint requires to be allowed in part.  The OP is liable to refund Rs.66/- excess interest collected from the loan account of the complainant, pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation.   We proceed to pass the following 

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The OP shall refund excess interest deducted through loan account of the complainant i.e. Rs.66/-, also pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. Rest of the prayers of the complainant are rejected.  
4. The OP shall comply this order within 30 days from this date.
5. Furnish the copy of this order and return the documents to the complainant with extra pleadings.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 5^th day of February, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant which are marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.11: