Sri Kamal De, President

This is a case over alleged overcharge of interest amount by the OP bank to the Complainant pertaining to a personal loan availed of by him.

In short, case of the Complainant, is that, on 25-11-2010, he took a personal loan of Rs. 2,40,000/- from the Haldia Township branch of United Bank of India (OP) and repaid the same in 60 installments @ Rs. 5,634/- per month.  It is alleged that although he has fully repaid the loan amount together with interest, yet the bank has realized a considerable excess sum from his savings bank account through ECS.  Hence, this case.

Per contra, it is the case of the OP that at the time of sanction of loan in favour of the Complainant, rate of interest was floating BR (Basic rate) + 6% = 14.40% with monthly rest, i.e., BR @ 8.40%.  Subsequently, the head office of the OP bank revised/enhanced the BR and the same has been duly conveyed to the Complainant.  It is stated that due to this extra load of BR, the interest rate has enhanced and as such, the Complainant is required to pay the residual outstanding amount.  It is clarified by the OP that, EMI includes, proportionate interest + principal amount of loan.  Due to gradual increase of interest, some amount remained unpaid after the lapse of 60 months.  It is the further case of the OP that since the Complainant has not paid all the installments in time, amount of interest got increased.  Denying any laches on its part, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.

The pivot hovers around the fact whether or not the OP has charged any extra amount to the Complainant arbitrarily.

Decision with reasons

            With a view to get into the bottom of the bone of contention under consideration, we have carefully gone through the materials/documents on record, viz., loan sanction letter dated 23-11-2010, statement of accounts, OP’s letter dated 28-12-2015 to the Ld. Lawyer of the Complainant.  Besides, we have also attentively heard the submissions advanced from the sides of the parties in support of their respective contentions.

          The dispute originated, as we find, over the misconception of the Complainant that he was required to pay fixed EMIs throughout the scheduled period of repayment of loan, no matter whether the BR undergo any changes or not.  From the copy of the loan sanction letter dated 23-11-2010, copy of which was duly signed by the Complainant himself, it appears that the loan was sanctioned in favour of the Complainant on floating rate basis.  It is commonly known that, in case of floating rate of interest, liability of the borrower on account of interest payment does not remain static - but keeps on changing with every tweaking of BR by the bank authority and the differential amount is adjusted either by enhancing/decreasing the numbers of EMIs or suitably changing the EMI amount.  As it turns out, during the period from November, 2010 to April, 2016, BR remained North bound resulting in extra financial burden upon the Complainant.  We find from the photocopy of the letter of the OP dated 28-12-2015, addressed to Ld. Lawyer of the Complainant that (copy submitted by the Complainant himself), OP has duly clarified the issue to the Complainant.

          Further, it appears from the statement of account for the period from 24-11-2010 to 18-04-2016 that the Complainant has been very erratic in the matter of repayment of loan amount resulting which, penal interest has been imposed upon him on several occasions by the OP bank. Thus we find, his own fault at times did saddle him into extra financial burden.  We are sure, for such lapses, the Complainant should curse himself and none else.    

          The Complainant has not come up with any documentary proof to show that the loan was sanctioned to him on fixed rate basis. There is no whisper from the side of the Complainant either that the applicable basic rates, as mentioned by the OP in its letter dated 28-12-2015 are wrong. Unopposed, the documentary proof, so put forth from the side of the OP puts it into strong footing. 

          The Complainant has cried foul over non-receipt of agreement papers from the side of the OP bank.  However, we fail to understand, what prevented him from knocking the door of the OP bank even once at the time of obtaining the concerned loan from the bank itself or immediately thereafter. Moreover, it appears from the loan sanction letter dated 23-11-2010 that the Complainant has put his stamp of approval to the same by signing the same without any protest.  No such case is made out from the side of the Complainant that he signed the same without reading in between the lines of the said sanction letter or that his signature was obtained by the OP through illegal means or that being an illiterate person, he could not discover the devil in the personal loan scheme.  Thus, it can reasonably be inferred that from the very beginning he was fully aware of the pros and cons of the personal loan sanctioned by the OP bank. It is always wise to look before you leap. We afraid, Complainant has miserably failed to adduce even a solitary documentary proof in support of his case.

We see no merit in the contention of the Complainant and accordingly, feel inclined to dismiss this case.

Consequently, the complaint case fails.

Hence,

ORDERED

that C. C. No. 24/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP.  No order as to costs.