Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/412/2018

Surinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Anuj Garg & Adv.Daljit Kaur

23 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	412 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	24.07.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	23.04.2019

 

 

 

 

 

1]  Surinder Kaur w/o Sh.Gurmukh Puri,

2]  Gurmukh Puri s/o Sh.Ram Singh,

Both residents of Village Shaimpur, P.O. Raipur Kalan District Mohali Punjab.     HaryaHarHar      

 

             …………….Complainants

 

Versus

 

State Bank of India, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.  

………. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  MR.RAJAN DEWAN        PRESIDENT

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA    MEMBER

                    MR.RAVINDER SINGH     MEMBER

           

 

Argued by :-

Sh.Anuj Garg, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh.Vishal Gupta, Advocate for Opposite Party along with Sh.Charanjit Singh Kler, Branch Manager SBI

 

 

RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

                    The case of the complainants is that they took housing loan of Rs.2,25,000/- in August, 2002 from Opposite Party for the construction of their house.  An agreement was executed between the parties vide which 180 equated monthly installments of Rs.2500/- were to be paid by the complainants starting from January, 2003. It is averred that the complainants had mortgaged their two properties with Opposite Party against the said loan. 

         It is stated that till 1.1.2015 the Opposite Party used to deduct Rs.2500/- as monthly installments directly from the account of the complainants, but thereafter from 1.2.2015, the Opposite Party started deducting Rs.3000/- as monthly installments from the account of the complainants.  It is stated that the Opposite Party never given any intimation to the complainants about the enhanced amount being deducted from their account and they came to know about this fact only from the statement of accounts. It is also stated that the complainants had already paid more than 180 monthly installment to Opposite Party, but still the Opposite Party did not given information about the status of loan nor returned the documents of property which were mortgaged.  Hence, this complaint has been filed. 

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that till 1.1.2015 an amount of Rs.2500/- was deducted from the account of the complainants, but from 1.2.2015 the EMI of the loan was enchanced by the Bank and the EMI was changed to Rs.3000/- and the complainants have paid the last EMI on 4.5.2018.  It is stated that as per Account Statement, an amount of Rs.1,37,390/- is still pending as on 1.7.2018 against the complainant and the same is required to be recovered from them towards loan account.  It is submitted that as per Arrangement Letter dated 24.8.2002 (Ann.R-2), it is clearly laid down that EMIs will have to be paid till the entire loan with interest is fully repaid and the amount of EMI may change/increase as may be decided by the Bank.  It is also submitted that the tenure of the loan agreement has no connection with the pending loan amount. Denying other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

3]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and also carefully examined the entire evidence on record.

 

5]       The complainants took loan of Rs.2,25,000/- on 24.8.2002 at the rate of interest of 10.5% per annum from State Bank of India/Opposite Party for construction of house (Ann.C-1).  The loan has to be pay back in fixed 180 equal monthly instalments of Rs.2500/- as per Memorandum of Term Loan agreement dated 24.8.2002 (Ann.C-2).

 

6]       Admittedly, the complainants have paid regularly 145 installments of Rs.2500/- with effect from 1.1.2003 to 1.1.2015 and 40 monthly installments of Rs.3000/- from 1.2.2015 to 4.5.2018.  The complainants, as such, have paid Rs.4,82,500/- to the Opposite Party against the loan of Rs.2,25,000/-.    As per agreed schedule of loan agreement, the complainants were to pay 180 monthly installments of Rs.2500/- i.e. 180x2500/- = Rs.4,50,000/-.  Meaning thereby, the complainants had to pay a total sum of Rs.4,50,000/-, against which they had already paid an amount of Rs.4,82,500/- till 4.5.2018 i.e. excess amount of rs.32,500/-.

 

7]       The OP Bank has changed the monthly installment from Rs.2500/- to Rs.3000/- with effect from 1.12.2015, without any knowledge and consent of the complainants.  The Opposite Party also in its reply claimed enhanced rate of interest on the loan amount on the pretext of its discretionary power to enhance the rate of interest, as per market conditions. The contentions raised by Opposite Party are untenable.  As per Arrangement Letter – Housing Finance issued by State Bank/OP (Ann.R-2), the conditions applicable regarding floating rate of interest have been deleted.  The terms and conditions, as stipulated in the Arrangement Letter – Housing Finance (Ann.R-2), it is manifestly clear that the loan advanced to the complainant was only fixed rate of interest i.e. 10.5% per annum.  The SBI/OP has no legal right to vary or impose any higher rate of interest prejudicial to the interest of the complainants.  The Opposite Party can only recover rate of interest on loan, which is settled as per terms of agreement of loan.  

 

8]       As per the evidence on record and also admittedly, the complainants have paid a total sum of Rs.4,82,500/- against the loan of  Rs.2,25,000/-. The Opposite Party, justifying claim of higher rate of interest, has stated to have claim of Rs.1,37,390/- as outstanding as on 30.4.2018 against the complainants as per statement of account (Ann.R-3), which is not sustainable. The claim of Opposite Party over & above Rs.,4,50,000/- against the complainants in respect of the loan in question is not valid, as per Arrangement Letter – Housing Finance of State Bank of India/Opposite Party itself and as such being an unfair trade practice on its part, is quashed.

 

9]       Keeping in view the facts in issue, as discussed above, the complaint is allowed with direction to the State Bank of India/Opposite Party to refund the excess amount of Rs.32,500/- to the complainants and release all the documents retained as security or hypothecation against the loan in question and issue No Due Certificate to the complainants, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to cost and compensation. 

         The copy of this order be forwarded to the parties as per rules.

Announced

23^th April, 2019                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

                                                                                               

Sd/-

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER