( Passed on dated 30^th  April, 2015 )

Per Shri Atul D. Alsi – Hon’ble President.

              The complainant had transferred his loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- sanctioned and disbursed by United Western Bank, Br. Gondia to opposite party No. 1 i.e. The Bhandara Urban Co-operative Bank, Ltd. Bhandara, Branch – Gondia. 

2.            It was agreed between complainant and opposite party No. 1 that complainant will repay the loan with 10% p.a. interest within 5 years in 60 monthly installments of Rs. 63,600/-.  The complainant was liable for payment of Rs. 38,22,000/- (Rs. 63,600/- x 60 = 38,22,000/-) till 29.06.2012.   The above schedule of repayment was duly mentioned in mortgage deed dated 26/06/2007.  The complainant due to two months delay had paid total Rs. 38,71,703/- till 05/09/2012 including interest for delay payment charges & other charges etc.  The complainant had given letter dated 19/10/2012, at the time of payment of last outstanding amount Rs. 13,633/- excluding Rs. 38,71,703/- and thereby requested for close of loan account as fully satisfied and release of all the mortgaged securities and shares.  The opposite party No. 1 duly received the said letter but failed to obey the same. 

3.            The opposite party No. 1 had made illegal demand of Rs. 3,54,254/- stating that it is outstanding loan amount on above loan account No. 34.  The opposite party No. 1 & 2 have no legal right to demand of Rs. 3,54,254/- and the same is false, baseless and against the loan agreement.  The above act of opposite party No. 1 amounts to cheating, fraud, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

4.            The complainant prayed in his complaint that it be declared that the opposite party No. 1 & 2 had committed deficiency in service by claiming more amount than agreed.  The opposite party No. 1 & 2 be directed to close loan account No. 34 of complainant as fully satisfied and release of all the mortgaged securities and thereby squash the illegal demand of Rs. 3,54,254/-, dt. 31/01/2013 i.e. the opposite party No. 1 & 2 be restrained from recovering any amount towards above loan account No. 34.  The opposite party No. 1 & 2 be also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation charges.   

5.            After receiving the notice issued by the Forum, the O.P. No. 1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement before the forum. 

6.            In their reply, the O. P. No. 1 & 2 submits that it is not disputed that there is an outstanding amount of Rs. 3,54,254/- against the Machinery loan A/c No. 34 of complainant of O. P. No. 1.  It is not disputed that the complainant had transferred on his own loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- sanctioned & disbursed by the United Western Bank, Gondia Branch to O. P. Bank No. 1.  It is not disputed that loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- came to be re-sanctioned to the complainant on dated 29.06.2007 with interest @ 12% p.a.  It is also not disputed that the aforesaid loan amount was to repay within 5 years in 60 monthly installments of Rs. 66,733/-.  It is further not disputed that the complainant has executed a Mortgage Deed registered on dt. 29.06.2007 itself thereby not only secured the loan amount but bind himself with the terms & conditions of loan agreement.   

7.            It is emphatically denied that O. P. Bank have manipulated the sanction letter by making over writing in the figure of rate interest i.e. changed the figure of rate of interest from 10% p.a. to 12% p.a. as alleged.  The complainant’s Machinery loan came to be sanctioned by Head Office of O. P. Bank on dated 23.03.2007.  As per the business practice and terms & conditions laid down in Bye-laws of O. P. Bank re-sanction to earlier sanction loan which is not operated is given with change in rate of interest and same os mentioned in Form of terms & conditions. 

8.            In special pleadings the opposite parties submits that the complainant couldn’t operate the sanctioned facility for more than 3 months.  Thus the loan proposal was lapse for want of operation.  The complainant, after 3 months of sanction of Industrial loan, had again applied for re-sanction of Industrial loan.  Accordingly the O. P. No. 2 has re-sanctioned the Industrial loan of complainant by modifying the rate of interest from 10% to 12% on dt. 22.06.2007. The complainant was orally informed by the O. P. No. 1 about the re-sanction, renewal of loan facility with change in rate of interest.  There is mentioned of rate of interest in the Mortgage deed dated 26.06.2007 which is 12% p.a.  The execution of registered mortgage deed dated 26.06.2007 goes to show the factum of knowledge of complainant about the change of rate of interest after renewal of loan facility.  The complainant is legally duty bound to pay to O. P. No. 1 all the dues as on date with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on loan amount.   The instant complaint is nothing but an attempt on the part of complainant to delay the recovery of legally entitled amount by the O. P. Bank from him.  The complaint is totally false & bogus and same is liable to be dismissed with cost.                      

9.            The complainant has filed Copy of terms & conditions of loan transactions at page no. 45, Copy of renewal of loan proposal of complainant at page no. 46, Copy of mortgage deed executed by the complainant in favour of O.P. No. 2 at page no. 48, Copy of loan Rokha (Karar-patra) at page no. 64, Copy of agreement at page no. 65, Copy of letter of authority at page no. 66, Copy of letter of acceptance of terms & conditions at page no. 67, Copy of Promissory Note at page no. 68, Copy of letter of lien and set-off at page no. 69, Copy of deed of hypothecation at page no. 70, Copy of letter issued by O. P. No. 1 to complainant at page no. 71,  Copy of notice by O. P. 1 to complainant at page no. 72, Affidavit of Mr. S. V. Tighare at page no. 73 on record.

10.                   The learned counsel for complainant Mr. S. B. Rajankar argued that in sanction letter it was written as 60 installments of 60.  There is overwriting in sanction letter the figure 10% is intentionally made as 12%.  The oral change of interest was communicated to complainant can’t be believed.  The O. P. has not misappropriated the documents with intention to recover more amounts.  The loan is taken for proprietorship for earning his livelihood.  Hence complaint shall be allowed.    

11.                   The learned counsel for opposite parties Mr. Bashir Ahmed submits that the Mortgage Deed dt. 26.06.2007 it was mentioned 12% rate of interest.  It is admitted that the loan was to be repaid in 5 years of Rs. 66,733/- installments of 60.  The complainant could not operate the sanction facility for more than 3 months.  Thus loan proposal was lapsed hence complainant had applied for re-sanction of loan.  Hence the loan was re-sanction & 12% on dated 22.06.2007 and complainant was orally intimated the change of rate of interest and re-sanction of loan amount.  The transactions are cancelled hence the case may be dismissed with cost.                  

12.                   Considering the rival contention of the party & submission made before us the following points arise for consideration & finding there on along with reasons.

REASONING & FINDINGS

13.                    The complainant availed loan for earing of his livelihood hence it is not for commercial purposes therefore the forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Therefore the issue No.1 is decided positively.

14.                   As to Issue no.2 :- The complainant has transferred a loan of Rs. thirty lac from United Western Bank, Branch Gondia to O.P. No.1 Bhandara Urban Co-operative Bank        Limited, Branch Gondia due to low rate of interest offer by O.P. No.1 with the permission of United Western Bank, Branch Gondia.  There was a dispute about the interest rate chargeable on loan amount and repayment of number of installments.  The complainant has filed the consumer complaint alleging that the O.P.No.1 has made illegal demand of Rs. 3,54,254/- as outstanding amount towards loan even if the complainant has paid all regular installments of Rs. 63,600/- of 60 months till 29/06/2012 still O.P. is demanding Rs. 3,54,254/- towards unpaid amount of loan vide letter dated 31/01/2013.

15.                   To decide the complaint it is necessary to take oral evidence and cross examination to interpret the documents filed on record.  The forum has summery power hence the matter can’t be decided under summary proceeding which requires elaborate evidence and detail cross examination.  Complex matters can’t be adjudicated in Consumer Forums.  Hence, the complaint is dismissed with liberty to file the proceeding before Civil Court or in any other appropriate Court.

              Hence, the following order:-     

-: ORDER :-

1.            The complaint is dismissed and liberty is given to                                complainant to file the proceeding before Civil Court or in                  any appropriate Court.

2.            No order as to costs.