Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/438/2013

Swaran Kumari age 62 years w/o Sh.Bal Mukand - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of Patiala - Opp.Party(s)

Satpal Singh Saini

26 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

 

                                                                        Consumer Complaint No.438 of 2013.

                                                                        Date of Institution:13.6.2013.

                                                                        Date of Decision:26.9.2017.

 

1.         Swaran Kumari  aged 62 years wife of Sh. Bal Mukand,

2.         Ravinder Kumar age 35 year s/o Sh. Bal Mukand,

Both residents of House No. 17, Vikas Nagar, Yamuna Nagar, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                …Complainants.

                                                Vs.

State Bank of Patiala Main Branch, Jagadhari Road, Yamuna Nagar ,        Though its Branch Manager .

…Respondent.

 

                                                Complaint under section 12 of the

                                                Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:        SH.SATPAL………..PRESIDENT,

                        SH.S.C.SHARMA,    MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh.Satpal Singh Saini, Adv. for complainants.

               Sh.Mukesh Sehgal, Adv. for OP.

 

ORDER:         (SH.STAPAL PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the respondent (hereinafter the respondent shall be referred as Op).

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainants have availed term loan facility of Rs.5,00,000/- from  the OP which was to be repaid by the complainants to the OP along with interest @10% p.a. in 84 monthly installments beginning after one year of the disbursement of the loan amount.  The complainants went on paying the loan installments, as agreed between the parties, and on receipt of statement, the complainants have come to know that the Op bank has illegally enhanced the rate of interest without giving any notice to the complainants.  The complainants have deposited an amount of Rs.9000/- on 30.5.2008 with the OP which has not been credited in the loan account of the complainants which is illegal and inappropriate on the part of the OP.  The charging of the excess interest is also illegal on the part of the Op and the complainant requested the Op several times to correct the rate of interest on the home loan but of no use, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for acceptance of complaint by directing the OP to correct the rate of interest being illegally charged from the complainants and also to adjust the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- i.e. excess amount charged in the loan amount of the complainants and also to adjust Rs.9000/- along with interest and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony, harassment as well as Rs.20000/- as cost of proceedings. 

3.                     Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands; the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint.  On merits, the OP admitted that the complainant availed the term loan of Rs.5,00,000/- on 28.2.2006 for which various loan documents have been executed by the complainants after understanding the contents of the same being educated persons.  The said loan was repayable in equal monthly installments of Rs.8650/- as per the copy of letter of Arrangement having terms and conditions of the loan facility.  It is wrong that the rate of interest of the aforesaid loan term was fixed @10% p.a. Therefore, the complainants are bound by the terms and conditions of the loan documents.  The rate of interest at sr. No.of Arrangement Letter is reproduced as under:-

“Interest on the loan will be charged at 1% per annum over PLR currently 11.5% per annum (the current effective rate being 10.5% per annum) with quarterly rests.  The rate of interest is subject to revision from time to time.  Such revised rate of interests shall always be construed as agreed to be paid by the borrower(s).  Borrower(s) shall be deemed to have notice of change in the rate of interest whenever the changes in PLR are displayed/notified at/by the branch/published in news paper/made through entry of interest charged in any State of Account”.

                        Bare perusal of the aforesaid clause, the rate of interest is subject to revision from time to time. Such revise rate of interest shall always be construed as agreed to be paid by the borrowers.  It is also wrong that the OP-bank has illegally enhanced the rate of interest without notice to the complainants, which is very highly unjustifiable and illegal at the instance of OP-bank.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

4.                     During the pendency of the case, on the request of the counsel for the complainant the record from the SBOP, Main Branch, Jagadhri road, Yamuna Nagar was summoned.  Sh.Amarjeet Singh, SWO appeared on 25.11.2014 and produced the copy of record of loan statement account as annexure C.1, loan agreement as annexure C.2, true copy of sanction to proceed under the provision of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 dated 20.4.2009 as annexure C.3.  The counsel for the complainant to further prove the case tendered into evidence copy of affidavit of complaint as annexure C.X, documents such as receipt of Rs.1000/- as annexure C.4, coy of receipt of Rs.9000/- as annexure C.5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

5.                     The counsel for the Op tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Ramesh Bawra, Chief Manager, State Bank of Patiala as annexure RW/A, documents such as copy of arrangement letter as annexure R.1, copy of agreement of loan as annexure R.2, copy of statement of account as annexure R.3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file. 

7.                     After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file, this fact is admitted that the complainants got sanctioned a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the OP on 28.2.2006 which was to be repaid in equal monthly installments @ Rs.8650/-.  The only point which is to be decided by this Forum is that whether charging of rate interest by the Ops is wrong or not?  We have perused the Arrangement Letter (annexure R.1) in which the amount loan has been shown as 5,00,000/- and rate of interest has been shown as “Interest on the loan will be charged at 1% p.a. over PLR currently 11.5% p.a. (the current effective rate being 10.5%p.a.) with quarterly rests. The rate of interest is subject to revision from time to time.  Such revised rate of interest shall always be construed as agreed to be paid by the borrower(s). The arrangement letter is duly signed by the complainants in English, so it is clear that the complainants are educated persons and they had to read the terms and conditions of the Arrangement letter as well as agreement.  It is well settled preposition of law that both the parties to the agreement are under obligation to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement and none of the party can travel beyond the prescribed terms and conditions of the agreement.  The Hon’ble National Commission has also settled the legal preposition that the courts should give true import of terms and conditions of policy, without making any addition or even stretching those terms and conditions.    The version of complainants is that the rate of interest was to be charged @10% p.a. but they have failed to file any documentary evidence in support of their version.  The onus to prove the case is upon the complainants which they have failed to discharge, hence, they are not entitled for any relief.

                        Resultantly, we find no merit in the complaint of the complainant and the same is hereby dismissed with order as to costs.  File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced in open Court:26.9.2017.

                                                                                                (SATPAL)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT.

 

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                    (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                                      MEMBER.