Date of hearing – 15th day of December, 2015
Date of Judgment – Monday, the 21st day of December, 2015
J U D G E M E N T
Challenge in this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) is to a judgment and final order dated 17th November, 2014 passed by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24-Parganas at Barasat (for short, Ld. District Forum), in consumer complaint No.338 of 2014, whereby the Ld. District forum allowed the consumer complaint filed on behalf of the Respondent under section 12 of the Act.
The Respondent herein being Complainant initiated the complaint alleging that he is an Account-holder of Allahabad Bank, Barasat Branch, being account No.20572201446. On 16.3.2004, the Complainant availed a House Building Loan of Rs.2,00,000/- at floating interest @ 8.25% per annum and also obtained a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 21.7.2004 @ 7.75% per annum floating interest. It is alleged by the Complainant that the O.P. Bank is charging 2% higher rate of interest over the market rate against House Building Loan (HBL). He has also alleged that the Bank has deducted Rs.5540/- to HBL Account on 31.121.2013 from the Salary Savings Account showing false allegation of low rate of interest. It has further been alleged that the Bank has deducted Rs.18,206/- from his Salary Savings Account in spite of repayment of Equal Monthly Instalments (EMI) for the loan. It has also been alleged that he has deposited Rs.6,68,950/- till 23.6.2010 and this is equal to 139 EMI, but the Bank is claiming at the revised rate of Rs.6,210/- per month. Hence the complaint with the following prayers, viz – (a) to pass an order to direct the O.P’s to collect present market rate of interest; (b) an order for adjustment of the previous extra amount of interest; (c) an order for refund of salary savings of Rs.18,206/- etc.
The Appellants herein being O.P’s by filing a Written Version denied the allegation levelled by the Complainants stating that due to increase in the floating rate of interest rate, the rate of interest has been enhanced. On behalf of the O.P’s it has been stated that the Complainant was made aware in writing about his total liabilities of repayment on floating rate of interest which he had accepted and assured to repay but now conveniently choose to evade the liability of the said repayment.
After assessing the evidence on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order directed the O.P’s to fix the rate of interest for the HBL reasonably so that the Complainant can make repayment of loan within the period fixed in the sanction letter and the rate of interest should not be more than 10% per annum against the said HBL with a further direction that EMI should not be more than Rs.5,000/- to enable the Complainant to liquidate the loan.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the O.P’s have preferred this appeal.
We have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submissions advanced by Mr. K.K. Ganguly, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant and the Respondent in person. We have also seen the BNA’s filed on behalf of the Respondent.
Upon hearing the parties and on having a look to the materials on record it emerges that the Respondent had availed HBL of Rs.2,00,000/- on 16.3.2004 at a floating interest rate @ 8.25% p.a. (at that time PLR was 11.50% p.a.) for a period of 180 months and again on Rs.3,00,000/- on 21.7.2004 @ 7.75% floating interest (at that time PLR was 11.00%) for 180 months with a stipulation that the repayment would be started with effect from December, 2004 at an EMI of Rs.4,800/-. As the Respondent being borrower did not opt for fixed rate of interest and has obtained loan on the basis of floating interest, the O.P. Bank had hardly any scope to reduce the amount on floating rate of interest.
Needless to say, the parties are bound by the agreement. When there was a stipulation of payment of Rs.4,800/- as EMI per month payable in 180 instalments month by month from December, 2004 and thereafter on several occasions, HBL interest has been revised at PLR on account of rising of PLR at 14.45%, the EMI has been revised at Rs.6210/- in place of Rs.4,800/-. The Bank has placed the statement of accounts regarding the said HBL account. The Respondent, who appeared in person could not impeach the authenticity of the said statement of accounts. It should be recorded here that the respondent has obtained some information from the O.P. Bank under the Right to Information Act. On 2.1.2014, the Bank has supplied the requisite information from which it reveals that the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- was sanctioned on 16.3.2014 at 8.25% p.a. (floating rate) and Rs.3,00,000/- was sanctioned on 21.7.2004 @ 7.75% p.a. (floating rate). The loan PLR has been revised many a times and finally the rate of interest was revised at PLR 3% with effect from 10.11.2008 and at present the interest is being charged in the account PLR 3.00% i.e. 11.45%. The Bank has also introduced ‘All Bank Ashiana Scheme HBL in order to enable the borrowers to convert the loan to new HBL scheme, paying processing fees at 1% to get the benefit of interest @ 10.20%. It has also been mentioned that the outstanding balance of Rs.3,19,469/- is to be paid by 71 monthly instalments of Rs.6,230/- @ 11.45% if the loan is converted under All Bank Ashiana Scheme. Admittedly, the Respondent did not choose to convert his HBL account under All Bank Ashiana Scheme.
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellants has submitted that the Ld. District forum has passed the order without application of any judicial mind because the rate of interest is a matter of contract between the parties and in that view of the same, Ld. District Forum should not have passed such an order which would be against the rules and if the same is enforced, then the object and purpose of the banking system would be frustrated. The Respondent could not refute the same.
It appears to us that the Ld. District Forum has completely mis-directed itself by not understanding that fixing of interest rate for loans provided by Public Sector Undertaking Banks like the Appellant Bank is totally dependent on the RBI Guidelines and also there is no embargo on the part of Bank in recovering outstanding amount from another account of the defaulting borrower and that is not at all illegal. The Ld. District Forum cannot formulate rule by itself by holding that the rate of interest should not be more than 10% p.a. of the HBL. When the parties are bound by the agreement and further in spite of having opportunity, the Respondent did not opt for exercising option to avail fixed rate of interest and rather exercised his option for floating rate of interest and further in spite of giving opportunity to him to convert his HBL Account to All Bank Ashiana Scheme, there is hardly any scope on the part of Consumer Fora to interfere with the rate of interest unless it becomes quite clear that there is apparent defect or wrong calculation in the statement of account.
The Respondent has submitted that Allahabad Bank is collecting interest at a lower rate of interest from other account-holders, could not inspire us because they have not been impleaded as parties to ascertain the actual state of affairs and the Bank is also not in a position to controvert the same.
Therefore, considering the materials on record and having heard the Ld. Advocate for the O.P’s we have no hesitation to hold that the Ld. District Forum has grossly erred in understanding the relevant facts and circumstances of the case taking into consideration the statutory provisions and the rules relating to sanctioning of loan under RBI guidelines. In that view of the matter, we must say that the order suffers from appropriate appreciation of facts and law and as such we are constrained to interfere with the order impugned.
In view of the above, the appeal being meritorious one, should be allowed and we do so. However, considering the facts and circumstance of the case, we do not make any order as to costs in this appeal.
For the reasons aforesaid, the instant appeal is allowed on contest but without any order as to costs.
The judgment/final order dated 17.11.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24-Parganas at Barasat in CC No.338 of 2014 is hereby set aside.
Consequently, the CC No.338 of 2014 is dismissed.
