Hon’ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member.
Some financial dispute between the Complainant and the Branch Manager is the bone of contention for adjudication of this case. The Complainant Dhajendra Barman described the facts in a nutshell that Complainant is a Ex. Govt. employee and at the time of service tenure Complainant applied before the OP for house building loan an on 24.09.05 OP sanctioned the loan of Rs.2,33,000/- as per Annexure-A. The term period of loan was 15 years and the amount of Rs.2160/- which was deducted from salary account of the Complainant from October, 2005. The OP started loan account No.11324237012 and OP deducted from the account No.31075279825. The OP transferred the loan amount on 24.09.2005, 21.10.2005, 19.11.2005 and 04.03.2006 respectively as per Annexure-A1. As per terms and conditions of the Complainant paid EMI of Rs.2160/- as per Annexure-C on 30.04.2010 OP without intimation OP deducted the new EMI of Rs.2500/-. The month of October, 2020 the loan period of 15 years was completed but OP illegally deducted the EMI after retirement of the Complainant. In this respect Complainant several times informed to the Op on 21.06.21 Complainant filed written complaint (Annexure-D) but till today OP did not replied the same. The Op stopped EMI after 30.08.21 but as per loan statement(Annexure-E) the existing closing balance was of Rs.9,565.26/- as on 31.01.2022 but till now OP did not issue NOC. So there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Subsequently, on 05.10.21 Complainant sent RTI(Copy of RTI Annexure-F & G) before the OP. In reply OP admit that period of loan was 15 years. As per loan account statement OP illegally deducted EMI of three times in the month of May, 2021, it was totally illegal. The cause of action in the present case arose on October, 2020 when the 15 years completed and on February, 2021 when the Complainant retired and on 21.06.21 when the Complainant filed written complaint and lastly on 10.11.21 when the OP replied RTI and is still continuing. The Complainant therefore prayed for an order against the OP not to claim the balance amount of Rs.9,565.26/- and to issue NOC and further order of Rs.1.5 Lakhs for mental pain and agony and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.
The OP contested the case by filing written version wherein OP denied each and every allegation and averment. The positive defence case in few words is that after sanctioning the said loan the OP disbursed an amount of Rs. 1 Lakh as first instalment on 24.09.05 and on 21.10.05 OP disbursed Rs.50,000/- and 2nd instalment and Rs.50,000/- as 3dr instalment OP disbursed the account on 19.11.05. The Op charged interest in this house building at different rates in different years. As per the State bank Advance Rate(SBAR) the rate f interest on the account of the loan would be applied. Initially the rate of interest was fixed at 7.5% and the Complainant was supposed to pay an EMI of Rs.2160/- only for 180 months. Thereafter multiple times the rate of interest was changed from 22.06.2007. The OP also submitted that once Complainant missed his EMI for a month, the amount of interest accrued for the previous month and is added with the principal outstanding. So, the loan term/ tenure in increased accordingly. The Complainant did not pay his EMI in the month of May, 2005, May, 2006, August, 2006, July, 2007, November, 2007 and after that on several occasions. So, the loan outstanding amount was also increased. The OP had to be reset after specific intervals as per bank circular and so less EMI was being paid by the Complainant and hence still there was a principal outstanding. As per Reserve Bank circular dated 16.09.2016 i.e. EBPLF(SBAR) system of interest is applied on home loan being A/C No.11324237012 of the Complainant as loan has been sanctioned on 24.09.05. The Op also base rate system of interest is applied on home loan also as per the directions of RBI the banks revises their interest applied on different loans from time to time depending upon may factors as clearly mentioned in the attached Reserve Bank of India master circular dated 01.07.2009. According to RBI guidelines there is no such lapses in part of the bank, in that case no case of deficiency in service arises. The OP bank has discharged its duty and fulfilled its commitment to the Complainant as per loan agreement with utmost diligence and sincerity. So, the question of deficiency in service does not arise the OP claimed that the case is liable to be rejected with cost.
The specific claim of the Complainant against the OP which the latter denied and disputed led this Commission to ascertain the following points for proper adjudication of the case.
Points for Determination
- Whether Complainant is a consumer or not?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief if any the Complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1.
The Complainants claimed himself as a customer under the OP, SBI Sagardighi Square, Cooch Behar Branch which the OP did not deny. The Complainants in order to prove their status filed and proved their bank statement, sanctioned house building loan letter of OP SBI bank in the name of Sri Dhajendra Barman and Smt. Mira Barman having loan account No.11324237012. The Complainant also proved document like sending RTI to the Regional Manager, SBI Sagardighi Square, Cooch Behar Branch and after reply by OP bank. Thus after perusing the documents and going through evidence on affidavit it is crystal clear that the Complainants Sri Dhajendra Barman and Smt. Mira Barman are the customers and as such the customers under the OP bank Sagardighi Square, Cooch Behar Branch.
Points No.2 & 3.
Both the Points are very closely interlinked with each other and as such taken up together for convenience and brevity of discussion.
It is the specific case of three complainant i.e. Sri. Dhajendra Barman and Mira Barman seen to have defaulted in repayment of the loan. So they are defaulter. He took house building loan so it was his bounden duty to repay the loan. Dhajendra Barman is a service holder. Had there been any problem to repay a particular instatement in time, he could have filed application to the Bank seeking time for repayment of the loan.
Secondly, due to his failure to repay the loan in time the rate of interest has been converted in to floating rate.
Thirdly, when the interest was converted in to floating it was the duty of the complaint to raise grievance immediately.
After perusing the case record it transpires that the complainant never filed any written complaint during his service tenure to the O.P. After retirement in Govt. service on 21.06.21 complainant filed written complaint before the O.P. Bank. The O.P. Bank deducted the E.M.I till 30.08.21. Subsequently on 05.10.21 complainant sent R.T.I to the Regional Manager of O.P. Bank.
Fourthly, so far as the repayment of House building loan is concerned both the parties shall be guided by agreement entered in to at the time of taking the loan. Complainant could not establish as to how the terms of the agreement was violated.
As per terms of loan agreement for Housing loan granted to public clause b. provides “ Interest on the amount of the loan will be applied at the rate of 7.5 per annum with monthly rests, calculated on the highest monthly balance. Interest and the amount of the loan will be applied at the rate applicable of Percent above/ below state Bank Advance Rate here in after referred to as SBAR, rising and falling there with, at monthly rests calculated on the daily balance of the loan amount. Provided that the Bank shall be at any time and from time to time be entitled to change the rate of interest depending on changes in SBAR, and such revised rate of interest shall always be construed as agreed to be paid by the borrower(s)shall be deemed to have notice of change in the rate of interest whenever the changes in SBAR are displayed/ notified at / by the branch/ published in news paper/ made through entry of interest charged in the passbook/ statement of accounts sent to the borrow(s).
“Without prejudice to the bank’s other remedies, the Bank shall be entitled to the bank’s other remedies, the Bank shall be entitled to charge at its own discretion, enhanced rate of interest and the outstanding in the loan account(s) or a portion there of for any default or irregularity on my/ our part which in the opinion of the Bank warrants charging of such enhanced rates of interest for such period as the bank may deem fit. The Equated monthly installments will have to be paid till the entire loan and the interest is fully repaid. Further the amount of Equated monthly installment may charge/ increase as may be decided by the Bank.
Ld. Advocate for the O.P. Bank argued that the complainant was in default for P.M.I of House Building loan and he could have given representation to the O.P. Bank for reset the loan though the complainant visited the bank for various purpose but without showing any interest for rest of E.M.I amount. However E.M.I had to be rest after specific intervals as per bank (SBAR) circular so less EMI was being paid by the customers and hence there was a Principal outstanding. But it was seemed that complainants are defaulter for months all together although they took house building loan.
So, the O.P. bank duly established the defence case. The Complainant seems to have not made any representation to the OP for repayment of EMI at floating rate.
Therefore this commission comes to the conclusion that the term of EMI of House building loan as given by the O.P. is correct and appropriate. Therefore complainant is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Accordingly, issue Nos. 2&3 are answered in negative and decided against the complainant.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the Complaint case No. CC/15/2022 be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by post forthwith, free of cost for information and necessary action, if any.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
