Hon’ble Mr. Subhas Ch. Guin, Member.

The fact of the complaint petition in a nut shell is that the Complainants Mr. Dipak Chandra Dey and his spouse Smt. Basanti Dey, who are residents of Ashram Road bye lane, New Town, P.O. & Dist- Cooch Behar by profession school teacher applied for loan to the Branch Manager, SBI Bazar Branch, N.N. Road, P.O. & Dist- Cooch Behar(OP) for purchasing land for house and the OP granted the loan vide A/C No.30175204230 and thereafter OP granted 2^nd loan for house building within two years as per terms and conditions of the 1^st loan vide A/C No.30946002862. On receipt of 2^nd loan, the 1^st loan was closed and NOC was issued by the OP (Annexure-A). This HBL was sanctioned on 04.11.2009 by the OP of Rs.7,95,471/- with number of EMI 180 with Rs.7,624/- each and the Complainants were paying EMI regularly and paid 135 EMIs till then. In the year 2020 when the Complainants went to the OP bank to enquire about loan status, he came to know that Rs.6,23,001/- was still balance including interest to be paid as bank received higher rate of interest. He was also told by the OP bank to file a petition to that effect and accordingly he filed a written complaint (Annexure-C) to the OP on 26.02.2020 which the OP replied on 24.11.2020 with wrong and misleading answer (Annexure-D). As per letter dated 24.11.2020 the rate of interest was set in as follows:-

Interest 8% per annum from 04.11.2009 to 03.11.2010.

Interest 9% per annum from 04.11.2010 to 03.11.2012.

Interest 12.5% per annum from 04.11.2012.

Interest 12.45% per annum from 04.02.2013.

Interest 12.55% per annum from 19.09.2013.

Interest 12.75% per annum from 07.11.2013.

Interest 12.60% per annum from 10.11.2015.

The Complainant claimed that the OP bank did not reset the EMI in the system with the increase in the rate of interest. The Op bank ought to set the EMI as per terms and conditions of the loan so as to loan to be repaid within stipulated period i.e. within 180 EMIs. But the OP bank claimed 64 extra EMIs or Rs.1496/- as EMI after a lapse of more than 10 years. Therefore it was a gross negligence on the part of the OP, alleged by the Complainants. The Complainant collected some papers relating to HBL from other customer of other branch which revealed that OP bank charged higher rate of interest from the Complainant than the others in the same period. He also collected rate of interest from RBI website which showed that on 04.02.2013 the rate was 9.95% but OP bank received rate of interest as 12.45% from the Complainant. Being aggrieved the Complainant sent a letter under RTI to Regional Manager, SBI on 01.12.20 which Regional Manager replied on 16.12.20. He also applied under section 19 of RTI Act to the Appellate Authority of the OP bank on 05.01.21 which they replied on 24.02.21. From the statement of loan account some discrepancies were found by the Complainants that included double deduction of EMI in the month of April, 2020 and receipt of excess EMI of Rs.207/- on 09.11.21 and Rs.4,835/- on 26.02.20 which the OP did not refund. The Complainants also claimed that the OP deducted Rs.45,473/- as premium of SBI Life Insurance for both Complainant but sum assured were different for both Complainant. It was also seen from the true copy of sanction letter that it was signed on 20.02.21 although loan was sanctioned on 04.11.2009. The OP bank whimsically issued sanction letter (Annexure-I). These activities of the OP amounted to deficiency in service which caused the Complainants to suffer from mental pain and agony as well as financial loss. The cause of action of the present case arose on 04.11.2009 when loan was granted and on 26.02.20 when the Complainant No.1 filed written complaint and on 24.11.20 when the OP replied the said complaint. To take recourse of law, the Complainants filed this instant case. He prayed to direct the OP to rectify the rate of interest and refund excess interest and to refund excess EMI of Rs.7624/- on 25.01.2010. He also prayed for a direction to the OP to refund excess EMI of Rs.207/- as well as refund of Rs.4835/- and to rectify SBI Life Insurance Policy and refund excess amount and to pay Rs. 2 Lakhs for deficiency in service and mental pain and Rs.20,000/- for litigation cost.

The OP contested the case by filing written version, evidence on affidavit and written argument denying each and every allegation brought against him. The Op asserted in his evidence that the home loan was sanctioned under SBI Easy Home Loan Scheme on 04.11.2009 for a period of 180 months and rate of interest for the scheme was fixed at 8% per annum for the 1^st year, 9% per annum for the next two years and then the interest rate would change and become floating after expiry of three years and for such reason the humble OP set the EMI @Rs.7624/- for 1^st year of repayment with condition of revising the EMI at the end of 1^st year and third years of repayment as per applicable interest rate (Annexure-I). The positive defence case of the OP is that the Complainants submitted a letter to the OP on 26.02.20 requesting refund of interest debited at a higher rate which they replied on 24.11.20 stating delay in reply of the same as yearly closing of bank and thereafter lockdown at different phases due to Covid-19 Pandemic. The OP bank also advised the Complainant in that letter that the Complainant might apply for further extension of 64 months in repayment term so that EMI of Rs.7624/- remained same or the EMI had to be increased to Rs.14,696/- subject to change of interest rate so that the outstanding amount would be repaid in the remaining period of 48 months. On the other hand, the Complainant visited OP bank for collection of bank statement several times over the years but he never submitted any request to reset the EMI. Bank cannot reset EMI without the consent of the Complainant and his request. Moreover, EMI had to be reset after specific intervals as per bank circular No.NBG/PBU/HL-Home Loans/5/2009-10 dated 26.06.2009 (Annexure-I), so less EMI was being paid by the Complainant since 04.11.2010 and hence still the principal outstanding was Rs.5,99,965/- only as on 23.11.2020.

The Ld. Advocate for the OP also stated about the different loan account quoted by the Complainant which differed in rate of interest. Benchmark Prime Lending Rate (In short BPLR) system was applied on Home Loan A/C of the Complainant whereas base rate system of interest was applied on home loan A/C of MD. Afjal Hossain as quoted in the complaint petition as per direction of RBI. Moreover, regarding higher rate of interest charged by the OP bank, the OP stated that the system of interest rate changed from BPLR to base rate w.e.f. 01.07.10 and then to Marginal Cost Lending Rate ( in short MCLR) w.e.f. 01.04.16 wherein loanee had to exercise option for change in the interest system. But the Complainant did not exercise any option to switch over. So the interest rate continued as per BPLR system in the Complainant’s Home Loan. The OP also asserted regarding deduction of EMI in the month of April, 2010 twice that as the loan was sanctioned and disbursed on 04.11.2009 and no moratorium was availed by the Complainants so their EMI repayment should have started from December, 2009 but their EMI for December, 2009 and February, 2010 were not paid in time which were recovered by the OP bank on 20.03.10 and 25.04.10 respectively which was intimated to the Complainants in reply to RTI. On allegation of excess EMI deducted on 09.11.2011 and receipt of amount of Rs.4835/- on 26.02.20, the OP stated that in the 1^st case no such deduction was made from SBI account of the Complainant rather it was 1% interest subvention that was credited to the Complainant’s home loan account by the OP and Rs.4835/- was the interest in the home loan for 26 days from 01.02.20 to 26.02.20 @ 11.20 per annum which was credited in the Complainant’s home loan account. In both cases, the Complainants raised false claim for gain. As to the insurance premium of the Complainants the OP clarified that it was dependent on three factors e.g. age of the customer, coverage amount and tenure of insurance. As there was big difference in age of both Complainants so premium of insurance was also different although other two factors were same for the Complainants.

The OP specifically mentioned that the arrangement letter with all terms and conditions was handed over to the Complainants but in the year 2009 when the loan was sanctioned, the sanction letter was not part of the loan document. Since the Complainants asked for sanction letter in their RTI, so it was provided to them at present date which is very much valid document.

Therefore, the allegations of Complainants brought against the OP is baseless as the OP bank has discharged its duties and fulfilled its commitment to the Complainants as per loan agreement with utmost diligence and sincerity. So, no case of deficiency in service arises on the part of the OP and Complainants are entitled to no relief which leads the case to be dismissed with cost.

Perused the pleadings and documents in the case record. Heard the arguments advanced by both parties at length. The following point need to be discussed thoroughly to reach per annum conclusion about the instant case.

Points for consideration

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

Decision with reasons

Point No.1.

Complainants applied for loan for purchase of land to the OP bank which was granted by the OP and as per terms and conditions of the said loan, a second loan of Rs.7,95,471/- was sanctioned on 04.11.2009 for house building within two years. Thereafter the Complainants closed their 1^st A/C No.30175204230 on 09.05.16 with full recovery of up to date interest (Annexure-A). Another A/C No.30946002862 which was operative was under SBI Easy Home Loan Scheme for a period of 180 months and rate of interest of the 1^st year was fixed at 8% per annum, 9% per annum for the next two years and then interest rate would be floating after expiry of three years and EMI was fixed at Rs.7624/-. In the year 2020, the Complainant came to know from the OP bank that a sum of Rs.6,23,001/- was still balance in their loan account. The Complainants were told to file written complaint before the OP as they received higher interest from the Complainants. Accordingly, the Complainants filed a written complaint to the OP bank to refund the excess interest on 26.02.20 (Annexure-C). The OP bank replied to that letter on 24.11.20 with a suggestion to the Complainants to apply for extension of 64 months in repayment term with monthly EMI of Rs.7624/- or else the EMI had to be increased to Rs.14,696/- subject to change of interest so that the outstanding was repaid in remaining period of 48 months as per original term of agreement. The rate of interest was required to be set at 9% per annum after 1^st year and then floating rate as fixed by the OP after two years but EMI was continued to be debited as Rs.764/- @ 8.0% per annum interest. Since the rate of interest jumped to higher rates ranging from 9% per annum to 12.75% per annum and remained there for about 10 years so the maximum portion of EMI went to interest part and principal repayment portion was very low. Therefore, the principal outstanding was Rs.5,99,965/- as on 23.11.20 although 132 EMIs had been repaid.

The rate of interest was required to be reset after 1^st year and 3^rd year but it was not reset due to which EMI was continued to be debited same amount. In the loan agreement it is clearly stated that the amount of EMI may change/ increase as may be decided by the bank. So as per loan agreement OP bank ought to set the EMI after 1^st year of repayment with a condition of revising the EMI at 3^rd year of repayment as per applicable interest rate. But the OP bank did not discharge their duties to reset the rate of interest.

Complainants claimed that the interest rate charged by the OP bank was higher. But the interest rate system charged from BPLR to base rate w.e.f. 01.07.20 then to MCLR w.e.f. 01.04.16 as per RBI directions(Annexure-4) and the complaint has to submit request for change in interest system (Annexure-6A & 6B). As the Complainants did not submit the request for change in the interest system. The interest rate continued as per BPLR system in petitioner’s home loan (Annexure-7) which is correct and no question of refund of excess interest arises. Complainants also prayed for direction to the OP to refund excess EMI of Rs.207/- as well as Rs.4835/- and to correct SBI Life Insurance Policy and refund excess amount. From Annexure-9, which is a statement of SBI account of the Complainants, it is seen that no such amount of Rs.7831/- was debited. It is also evident from the statement of account that Rs.4835/- was not deducted from the Complainants account which is the interest of home loan for 26 days from 01.02.20 to 26.02.20 credited in the loan account of the Complainants. So, in both cases refund of the said amount does not arise. Premium on insurance policy varies with age of the insured. As the age of both Complainants differs a lot, so the premium of the both Complainants vary in amount. Both Complainants applied for insurance policy of the same loan amount but the sum assured differs for both Complainants which is due to mistake on the part of the OP. Moreover, Complainants also claimed to get back excess EMIs of Rs.7,624/- on 25.01.10 but from the statement of account (Annexure-G1) it is seen that no such amount was deducted. So the question of refund of EMI by the OP does not arise.

Had the OP reset the interest rate after one year of repayment and 3^rd year of repayment as per applicable rate, the EMI would have been higher, causing loan repayment completed within stipulated period. Then, the Complainants would not have suffered from mental pain and financial loss. Therefore, these activities of the OP tantamount to deficiency in service. In the result complaint case succeeds on contest.

Hence, it is

Ordered

That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost.

So, the OP is directed to set the interest rate applicable with increase in amount of EMI to complete the repayment of the loan within stipulated time or to increase the number of EMI for repayment of the loan whichever is suitable for the Complainant. The Op is further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing which the total awarded sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) shall carry an interest @ 6% per annum till its realisation.

D.A. to note in the trial Register.

Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.

The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.

Dictated and corrected by me.