Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/190/2015

D.Jayabala Chandran - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorized Officer, IDBI Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

T.Sreetharan

15 Oct 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 01.04.2015

                                                                          Date of Order : 15.10.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.190/2015

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018

                                 

D. Jayabalachandran,

S/o. Mr. C. Dharuman,

Finance Office (Retd.)

AIBI, Ground Floor,

Arunachala Concepts,

Thanigai Salai, Arulmurugan Nagar,

Kilkattalai,

Chennai – 600 117.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                  

 

        ..Versus..

 

The Authorized Officer,

IDBI Bank Ltd.,

Retail Asset Centre,

Kalpalathika Towers, 1^st Floor,

Old No.24, New No.36,

Dr. Ambedkar Road,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai – 600 024.                                                    ..  Opposite party.

          

Counsel for complainant      : Party in person

Counsel for opposite party  : M/s. R. Palani Kumar Ramesh & another

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month towards rental income and to pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and insult etc with cost of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that the complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.9,15,000/- from the  opposite party bank on 30.03.2005 towards housing loan in which, the complainant’s wife is a co-borrower.  The EMI is fixed as Rs.9,534/-. The complainant issued post-dated cheques for entire EMI amount also.   The complainant submits that on 06.01.2012 when the  complainant went to the opposite party bank, he was informed that EMI amount was increased from 9,534/- to Rs.13,205/- without any notice.  Hence, the complainant issued notice to the opposite party dated:15.02.2012, 26.07.2012 & 29.08.2012 for which, the opposite party has not issued any reply.  But on 13.08.2012, the opposite party issued notice stating that action initiated under SARFAESI ACT, 2002 and the possession was taken.  The possession notice also affixed in the door.  Hence the co-borrower namely Girija, the wife of the complainant paid the entire amount.  The complainant submits that the opposite party’s notice dated:13.08.2012 is arbitrary and against law.  There is no default in payment of EMIs by the complainant.  Since the opposite party affixed the notice on the door of the house, the tenants were vacated resulting huge loss.  The act of the opposite party caused great mental agony and hence the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The  opposite party states that as per the loan agreement, this opposite party is entitled to revise the interest at any time.  Hence, the opposite party revised the EMI of the complainant.  Thereby, there is a deficiency in payment of EMI.   The opposite party states that on 06.01.2012, the opposite party had informed him about the re-scheduling of EMI pursuant to the revision in the rate of interest.  Since the terms of the agreement dated:29.03.2005 enables the bank to revise the interest rate and default interest rate on the Home Loan without  there being any need to assign a reason for such revision the complainant is estopped from contending that the opposite party is charging the interest more that the agreed rate of interest.   The opposite party states that as per the terms of the Home Loan Agreement, his account was classified as NPA on 10.05.2012 in compliance with the guidelines issued by RBI and proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002.  The co-borrower Smt. K. Girija approached the opposite party on 26.03.2013 and regularized the Housing Loan account by paying an amount of Rs.1,11,122/- and undertook to pay the revised EMI regularly and therefore, the opposite party withdrawn the proceedings initiated against the borrower and the secured asset under SARFAESI Act. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part  of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and no documents marked on the side of the opposite party.

4.      The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant entitled to Rs.12,00,0000 towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.20,000/- as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard both Counsels also.   Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  The complainant pleaded and contended that admittedly the complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.9,15,000/- from the  opposite party bank on 30.03.2005 towards housing loan in which, the complainant’s wife is a co-borrower.  The EMI is fixed as Rs.9,534/-. The complainant issued post-dated cheques for entire EMI amount also.   The complainant further pleaded and contended that on 06.01.2012 when the  complainant went to the opposite party bank, he was informed that EMI amount was increased from 9,534/- to Rs.13,205/- without any notice.  Hence, the complainant issued notice to the opposite party as per Ex.A2, Ex.A3 & Ex.A4 for which, the opposite party has not issued any reply.  But on 13.08.2012, the opposite party issued notice as per Ex.A5 stating that the action initiated under SARFAESI ACT, 2002 and the possession was taken.  The possession notice also affixed in the door.  Hence the co-borrower namely Girija, the wife of the complainant was constrained to pay the entire amount.  Further the contention of the complainant is that Ex.A5, notice is arbitrary and against law.  As per Ex.A6, statement of accounts there is no default in payment of EMIs.   The arbitrary increase of EMI also paid by the co-borrower.  Since the opposite party affixed the notice on the door of the house, the tenants were vacated resulting huge loss. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- towards mental agony and loss with cost.   But on a careful perusal of the complaint and other records, this complaint is barred by limitation. 

6.     The learned Counsel for the opposite party contended that as per the loan agreement, this opposite party is entitled to revise the interest at any time.  Hence, the opposite party revised the EMI of the complainant.  Thereby, there is a deficiency in payment of EMI.   Due notice also sent.  But on a careful perusal of records, the opposite party has not issued any notice.  The notice cited in Ex.A5 under SARFAESI ACT, 2002 also not produced before this Forum.  The opposite party also has not produced any Reserve Bank of India guidelines to prove that the opposite party is having every right to increase the EMI without any notice as per their whims and fancies.  Further the contention of the opposite party in that the co-borrower paid the amount and thereby, the action has not been initiated.   Further the contention of the opposite party is that the loan amount has been settled.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the case is barred by limitation as the case is filed only on 01.04.2015. As per the Consumer Protection Act under Section 24 A, it shall be barred by limitation.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that this complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 15^th day of October 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANTS’ SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	2008	Copy of Sale deed
Ex.A2	15.02.2012	Copy of complainant’s notice to the opposite party
Ex.A3	26.07.2012	Copy of complainant’s notice to the opposite party
Ex.A4	29.08.2012	Copy of complainant’s notice to the opposite party
Ex.A5	13.08.2012	Copy of notice of the opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A6	11.04.2015	Copy of bank statement

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY’S SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT