Haryana

StateCommission

A/351/2015

SYNDICATE BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURENDER KUMAR KALRA - Opp.Party(s)

PANKAJ NANDA

02 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                        First Appeal No.351 of 2015

Date of Institution: 10/21.04.2015

Date of Decision: 02.08.2016

 

Syndicate Bank, Main Delhi Mathura road, Palwal, through its Branch Manager.

…..Appellant

Versus

Surender Kumar Kalra S/o Sh. Har Narayan Karla, r/o H.No.1111/23/B/A, Kalra Colony, Near Geeta Bhawan, Palwal aged 56 years.

                                      …..Respondent

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:               Shri Pankaj Nanda, Advocate counsel for appellant.

Shri A.K.Singal, Advocate counsel for the respondent.  

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

It was alleged by the complainant that he obtained house loan in the year 2004 of Rs.4,15,000/- from the opposite Party (O.P.)/appellant at the fixed rate of interest @ 8.50 % per annum, payable in 12 years.  At that time the floating rate of interest qua said housing loan was 7% and 7.25% per annum.  O.P.No.1 told at that time that in case of fixed rate of interest no extra interest would be charged in future and that is why he agreed to the terms and conditions. He was to repay the loan up to 4.09.2016 with monthly installment of Rs.4683/-.  Lateron O.Ps.  deducted Rs.43,308.5 paise and also charged Rs.6,320/- from his over draft (In short “OD”) account. Without his consent and information and against the guidelines settled in between them.  O.P.No.2 deducted Rs.43,308/- as seepage interest over the housing loan from OD account without any right and in this way committed an offence punishable under section 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short “IPC”). They enhanced the rate of interest illegally and were not entitled for the same. They be directed to pay Rs.43308/- in the shape of seepage interest Rs.6320/- as inspection charges besides compensation qua litigation and mental  harassment etc.

2.      As O.P.No.1 was proceeded against ex parte, so only O.P.No.2 filed reply  and alleged that complainant closed his OD account on 26.06.2012 with full and final settlement without any objection.  O.P. denied that rate of interest was settled for a period of 12 years.  In para No.8 of the agreement it was mentioned that the rate of interest could change from time to time. As per circular No.26/2003/BC/CRD dated 17.02.2003, the bank was entitled to review the interest after every 5 years in case of fixed rate pertaining to house  loans.  In circular No.106-2007-BC-RMMD-12/CPP dated 08.05.2007 it was mentioned in clause No.3.04 that if housing loan was payable beyond 10 years then the bank would charge interest @ 12%.  So complainant was not having any right to allege that bank was not entitled to revise the rate of interest.  As complainant failed to submit required statement in time audit branch pointed towards seepage of the revenue to the bank and that is why the amount was debited from his account. In circular No.158/2010/BC/RMD/10 dated 30.06.2010 it was mentioned that bank would charge 1% penal interest compounded monthly over and above the normal rate of interest for non-submission/delayed submission of monthly stock statement. This instruction was also mentioned in the circular dated 15.05.2012. The rate of interest was charged from the complainant as per provisions of law and he was not entitled for the relief claimed.  Objections about maintainability of claim, estopple, limitation etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide order dated 10.03.2015, which is as under:-

“(i)     to return/refund/adjust the seepage charges, as charged illegally (outgoing bill seepage interest in the bank statement of February 2012 to the tune of Rs.43,308/- to the complainant.

(ii)      To refund the seepage charges charged in the form of panel interest for late submission of monthly stock statement to the tune of Rs.6320/- from the OD account of the complainant maintained with the opposite party to the complainant.

(iii)     Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.2100/- as litigation expenses to the complainant jointly and severally. The above all directions are to be complied within 45 days from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which the opposite parties will be further burdened to the tune of Rs.30,000/- as compensation in addition to the above mentioned awarded amount.  “

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, opposite parties-appellants have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that from the perusal of clause 8 of agreement Ex.R-10 it is clear that rate of interest can be revised from time to time.  Terms and conditions were to the notice of the complainant which is clear from the perusal of his letter dated 08.02.2005 Ex.R-8 wherein it was specifically mentioned by him that rate of interest was revisable one since five years. So, it cannot be alleged that he was not aware about the terms and conditions. Vide circular dated 17.02.2003 Ex.R-2 the rate of interest was revisable after every five years, but, vide circular dated 08.05.2007 it was brought to three years.  The rate of interest was revised keeping in view circular dated 15.05.2012 Ex.R-5 and dated 13.05.2006 Ex.R-7 etc. so it cannot be opined that bank was not authorized or entitled to revise the rate of interest.  The learned District Forum failed to take into consideration these clauses and wrongly allowed the complaint.

7.      However there is no dispute about clause No.8 of agreement and knowledge of the same to the complainant, copy of which is Ex.R-1, but, there is rider in clause 8 before applying the revised rate of interest.  For ready reference, clauses a & b of clause 8 are reproduced as under:-

“a) Rate of interest, other charges, expenses etc., shall be subject to change from time-to-time as per the credit risk rating system PTLR of the Bank and/or otherwise as per the directives of the Reserve Bank of India/The National Housing Bank issued from time-to-time and the Borrower agrees to pay interest, other charges, expenses etc., at such rates as may be fixed by the Bank in this behalf, from time-to-time.

b)      the notification displayed in the Notice Board in the Bank premises or in any News paper regarding change of interest, other charges, expenses etc., from time-to-time shall be sufficient notice to the Borrower and the Borrower agrees to pay such interest, insurance premium, other charges, expenses etc., at the rate notified in the Notice Board of the Bank until all dues are cleared in full and the Borrower hereby expressly waives notice of such change/variations.”

8.      From the perusal of  sub clause b of clause 8 it is  clear that regarding change of interest the bank was supposed to display the notification in the notice board in the bank premises or in any newspaper. It means that if this provision is not complied with, the bank will not be entitled to claim revised interest.  In the present case appellant-O.P. has miserably failed to show that any notification was ever displayed on the notice board of the bank or it was published in any newspaper, whereas it was the duty of the O.P. to prove that this condition was followed.  If  this condition is not followed then it is to be presumed that there was no notice to the complainant and the rate of interest could not be revised. Circular dated 17.02.2003 Ex.R-2 pertains to the cases where the rate of interest was 9.75 or above whereas in the case of complainant the rate of interest was 8.50 percentage.  The relevant portion of Ex.R-2 is as under:-

“Repayment period (Including Repayment Holiday)	Fixed rate Housing Loans (% p.a.)	Floating rate housing Loans (%p.a.)
Upto 5 years	8.75	PLR/PTLR-3.00 i.e. presently 8.50
Above 5 years to 10 years	9.50	PLR/PTLR-2.25 i.e. presently 9.25
Above 10 years to 20 years	9.75	PLR/PTLR-2.00 i.e. presently 9.50”

 

9.      In these circumstances appellant-O.P. was not entitled to charge more interest, particularly when the provisions contained in agreement were not complied with.

10.    Circular dated 15.05.2012 pertains to revision in service charges on loans and advances and not the housing loan, so these arguments are of no avail. The findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned, based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

August 2nd, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.