Date of Filing: 14-09-2015 Date of Final Order: 20-02-2018
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President
This is an application u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
One Ram Chandra Pramanik, (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) lodged the complaint against the Branch Manager, UBI, Cooch Behar Branch (hereinafter referred to as the OP) alleging deficiency in service.
The Complainant took financial assistance from the OP amounting to Rs.4 lakh in October, 2004 vide Account No.024030040712 at fixed rate of interest @ 8.5% per annum as per agreement executed between the parties and the home loan amount was repayable by 120 equal monthly installment @ Rs.5,031/- starting from January, 2005. The OP Bank demanded Rs.38,372/- illegally upto 31.03.15 and on enquiry, the OP Bank informed the Complainant that the rate of interest was calculated wrongly @ 8.5% per annum as fixed rate of interest in lieu of floating rate of interest. The Complainant paid the demanded amount of the OP with a view to save his prestige and ultimately filed the instant case praying for relief against the OP for deficiency in service. The cause of action arose on 16.05.15. The Complainant prayed for reliefs as mentioned in the complaint petition.
The OP put appearance and filed w/v on 09.02.16 inter-alia denying the allegations made out in the complaint contending that the case is barred by law of limitation and the case is bad for defect of parties. There was no negligence and deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and the complaint petition is vexatious one. It is the specific case of the OP that the Complainant applied for United Housing loan and the loan of Rs. 4 lakh was sanctioned and the rate of interest had been enhanced as per loan agreement dated 11.10.2004 duly signed by Ram Chandra Pramanik (Complainant) and one Tripti Pramanik. The OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
On the basis of above versions, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per provision under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the O.P any deficiency in service, as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No.1.
The Complainant has submitted that Complainant is/was a consumer of the OP as he has/had an Account with the OP Bank and he had a loan Account also in the OP Bank. It was argued that he had filed the complaint for deficiency in service on the part of the OP. In reply, the Ld. Agent for the Op stated nothing on this point.
On going through the written complaint, w/v, evidence and documents furnished by both sides, we find that the Complainant had/has a Savings Account with the OP Bank and he also availed home loan from the OP Bank. On a careful consideration, we find that that the Complainant is a consumer of the OP.
Point No.2.
The Complainant has submitted that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum.
In reply, the Ld. Agent for the OP did not raise any objection. On a careful consideration over the matter, we are of the view that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Point Nos.3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition.
The Complainant has submitted that the Complainant took a loan of Rs.4 lakh at fixed rate of interest @ 8.5% per annum on the strength of Sanction order dated 20.09.2004. It was urged that he was regular in repayment of loan and at the verge of repayment, he received a letter dated 16.05.15 from the OP directing him to pay Rs.38,372.44/- upto 31.03.15 on the pretext that rate of interest calculated @ 8.5/- (fixed) was made due to inadvertence and the rate of interest should have been charged on floating rate basis (Annexure “C”). It was argued that the Complainant was compelled to pay the claimed amount with a view to prevent the Account from turning into NPA. It was contended that the OP issued statement in favour of the Complainant on 29.07.13 stating that the rate of interest was “fixed”. He argued that the OP charged more interest by calculating the loan amount on floating rate basis by ignoring the agreement between the parties dated 11.10.2004. He submitted that the OP had deficiency in service. He prayed for Rs.25,000/- as compensation and unfair trade practice, Rs.25,000/- for mental pain and agony, Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost and refund of Rs.38,372.44/-.
In reply, the Ld. Agent for the OP submitted that the loan of Rs.4 lakh was sanctioned in favour of the Complainant and one Tripti Pramanik on the basis of loan agreement dated 11.10.2004 and the rate of interest was 8.5% per annum and it was floating rate of interest. He argued that the OP Bank calculated the rate of interest on fixed rate basis due to inadvertence and the Complainant was informed about the fact when the mistake was detected by the OP Bank. It was urged that the rate of interest as calculated by the OP was in accordance with the rules and guidelines of the RBI and other appropriate authorities. It was urged that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case. He has contended that the Complainant had filed the case with mala-fide intention. He prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Admittedly, the OP Bank sanctioned home loan amounting to Rs.4 lakh on the strength of agreement dated 11.10.2004 duly signed by the Complainant and Tripti Pramanik as borrowers (Annex. 1). It appears from the Aadhar Card and Voter Identity Card of Tripti Pramanik that Ram Chandra Pramanik (Complainant) is the husband of Tripti Pramanik (Annex. O & P). The Complainant has filed revised united housing scheme dated 20.04.2004 (Annexure M) and it appears from Clause 8.1 that rate of interest above 5 years upto 10 years was 9% per annum (fixed rate) and in case of Floating rate of interest BPLR 2.25% subject to a minimum of 8.50% per annum. It is the version of the Complainant that he took the loan at fixed rate @ 8.5% per annum and the OP supplied the document to him (Annexure M) stating that the rate of interest calculated was fixed rate of interest. Admittedly, it appears from the para 6 of the sanctioned order (Annexure A) that rate of interest was 8.5% per annum and the EMI for 120 installments was calculated @Rs.5,031/- per month. We have also gone through the Clause 8.2 of the document relating to United Housing Scheme dated 20.04.2004 (Annexu M) from where it appears that if the loan is taken by a married couple jointly, the interest shall be reduced by 0.50% on the stipulated rate for all periods and amount of loan. The Complainant has filed Aadhar Card and Voter Identity Card of his wife Tripti Pramanik.
It appears from the loan agreement and sanctioned order that the loan was taken by the Complainant and his wife Tripti Pramanik jointly and it can be safely said that they were entitled to get reduction of 0.50% of the stipulated rate of interest as per Clause 8.2. If the version of the OP is accepted that the loan was taken on floating rate basis, the rate of interest should have been 8% per annum as per Clause 8.2 but if we accept the version of the Complainant that they took the loan at the fixed rate of interest @ 9% per annum and the Complainant and his wife got reduction of 0.50% on stipulated rate as he along with his wife took the loan jointly. In that case, the fixed rate of interest would have been 8.5% per annum. Moreover, the statement of account for the period from 01.04.12 to 31.03.13 issued by the OP in favour of the Complainant dated 29.07.13 (Annex F) supported the case of the Complainant wherein it was mentioned that the rate of interest was fixed. There is no document to establish that the Complainant and his wife Tripti Pramanik took the home loan at floating rate of interest. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant and his wife Tripti Pramanik took the housing loan from the OP Bank amounting to Rs.4 lakh at the rate of 8.5% interest per annum (fixed) payable by 120 equal monthly installments. So, the OP cannot claim floating rate of interest against the loan sanctioned in favour of the Complainant and his wife. We find that the letter dated 16.05.15 issued by the Chief Manager, UBI, Cooch Behar Branch stating that the interest rate was inadvertently charged @ 8.5% fixed rate has no basis at all as the documents issued by the OP proved that the loan was sanctioned @ 8.5% fixed rate. The Complainant stated that he had already paid the excess amount claimed by the OP to avoid further complications.
To our mind, the act of the OP regarding the change of rate of interest from fixed rate into floating rate of interest has no basis at all and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the Complainant is entitled to get compensation for deficiency in service and mental pain and agony. We also think that the Complainant is entitled to get litigation cost against the OP. The OP may be directed to refund the excess amount already received by them.
The Case was filed on 14.09.15 and admitted on 17.09.15. This Forum has taken endeavour to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible and reasons for delay has duly been explained in day to orders.
In the result, the complaint case succeeds.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence,
It is Ordered,
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service and mental pain and agony to the Complainant. The OP is directed to calculate the amount payable by the Complainant towards repayment of the loan @ 8.5% per annum (fixed) and to refund the excess amount already received by 45 days from the date of this order. The OP is also directed to supply the statement of account regarding repayment of loan/refund of excess amount and up-to-date calculation to the Complainant by 45 days from the date of this order.
The OP is directed to comply the aforesaid order by 45 days from the date of Final Order, failing which the OP is to pay simple interest @ 6% p.a. to the Complainant on the amount received in excess from the Complainant and to pay Rs.50/- for each day’s delay and the accumulated amount is to be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Post forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action. The copy of the Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
