SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
In this complaint, U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, complainant has sought relief from opposite party, by getting an order to direct opposite parties to issue non-liability certificate, to return the title deed of the property of 1st complainant and other connected documents submitted by this complainant for the loan and to pay an amount of Rs.5,15,000/- as compensation and refund an amount of Rs.1,07,526 to them by settling the home loan availed by these complainants.
The complainant had availed a housing loan amounting Rs.10,40,662/- from the OP. Further as per the request of complainant it was enhanced to Rs.11,15,662/-. Repayment period was 120 monthly installments at the prior loan and after enhancing repayment period was 145 months. EMI was Rs.14,437. Complainant had had mortgaged 2.53 Ares property in RS No.138/5 at Chirakkal Amsom Desom as security. It is the grievance of the complainant that the OP charged increased rate of interest without any notice and consent of the complainant. As per the terms of the agreement, EMI has been fixed and the rate of interest is 9.5% per annum, the FRR margin is 0.75%. According to the complainant though he had repaid more that in the liability amount, OP did not return the documents of the mortgaged property and not issued non-liability certificate to the complainant. Instead of giving back the documents, OP demanded excess amount by calculating huge interest.
The OP is doing unfair trade practice. Complainant alleged that demand of the OP for the excess amount of Rs.6,18,175/- is against the terms of the agreement and assurance and it is against the loan.
The OP filed its version and averred that the interest was charged on the loan amount as per the rules and regulations and no excess interest was charged and collected from the complainant. Rate of interest collected was in terms of RBI guidelines. Further, submitted that the period of installments (120) was subsequently increased to 145 monthly installments since the amount of loan was increased. In the loan agreement complainant had chosen a floating interest rate. Thereby period of EMI is likely to vary and the same was mentioned in the loan agreement. Further submits that OP sent a demand notice stating that complainant is liable to pay Rs.5,55,569/-. OP submits that in order to avoid the payment, complainant filed this complaint.
At the evidence stage complainant has filed chief affidavit and examined as Pw1 and marked Ext.A1 to A10. On the side of OP, OP1 examined as Dw1 Ext.B1 to B5 were marked. After that OP filed argument note and complainant argued.
The complainant’s averment is that he had availed loans and regularly repaid the loan amount. Total amount repaid by him is Rs.19,87,451/-. Further, submitted that this complainant availed housing loan from the OP after fixing EMI as well as the rate of interest @ 9.5%. Considering the payment amount this complainant paid 10.50% of interest for the loan availed which is1%higher than the agreed amount. As per the account statement the OP has taken the agreed interest only for few months only. The OPs taken the interest @12%, 12.75%, 13%, 13.25%, 13.50%, 13.75%, 13.85%, 14.10%, 14.25%, 14.35%, 14.50%, 14.70% and 15% in various occasions form this complainant, from 10/02/2007 onwards by the OP. The OP computed the interest at monthly rate. The OP charge excess interest from this complainant. In few period OP charged 5.5% excess interest than the agreed interest. The act of the op is against the direction of RBI.
Here the complainant is alleging excess interest charged by the bank on transactions involved a number of entries. For adjudication requires detailed examination of interest on each month etc. Our view is that for deciding this point, it was better to the complainant to approach a civil court.
One of the allegations of the complainant is that OP has calculated interest and taken from the complainant without information and without getting consent of the complainant.
With regard to this point, it is evident from the loan agreement that interest is under floating rate. The learned counsel of OP submitted a judgment of Hon’ble National Commission ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Vishnu Bausal (First appeal No. 454 of 2021), in which the Hon’ble National Commission held that “In so far as taking consent of the complainant is concerned, we are of the considered view that the bank was well within its rights to increase or decrease the rate of interest under the floating rate of interest provided for in the loan agreement executed between the bank and the complainant and any additional or further consent from the complainant was not required, the same having already been agreed to in the loan agreement itself”.
In another judgment ICICI Bank Vs. Mahaaraj Krishna Datta and Ors. (SC Civil Appeal No.5928 of 2015), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that in case, loan was sanctioned the floating rate of interest, which at the time of sanction was 8.75 per annum and could be enhanced as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and in accordance with the agreement between the parties.
Here complainant has not adduced any material evidence to show that OP has charged interest not in accordance with the guidelines of RBI. So from the above views taken by the appellate commission, we are also taken the same view and is of opinion that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP bank.
Further from the evidence, it is revealed that complainant has filed this complaint, after taking legal action including SARFAESI U/s 13(2), by the bank. Ext.B3 shows that OP bank has issued loan recall notice dated 22/03/2019, stating that the borrower as well as co-borrower to pay on Aggregate sum of Rs.5,53,232/- to the bank within a period of 7 days from the date of the said letter. Ext.B4 is the letter issued to the complainant dated 30/03/2019 U/s 13(2) of the SARGAESI Act.
OP bank submits that bank is ready to return the security documents and NOC to the complainant, on remitting the dues. From the entire facts of this case, we cannot insist OP bank to release the documents submitted by the complainant as security and issue NOC without remitting the entire dues according to RBI guidelines.
In the result complaint fails and hence the same is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exts.
A1- Loan agreement
A2- Loan sanction order
A3- Loan extension agreement
A4- Loan account statement dated 03/07/2016 to 10/08/2018
A5- Account statement dated 13/04/2007
A6- Payment statement
A7- Lawyer notice
A8(series)- Postal receipt (2 in numbers)
A9 & A10- Acknowledgment cards
B1- Offer letter dated 05/06/2006
B2- Facility agreement dated 10/07/2006
B3- Loan recall notice dated 22/03/2019
B4- Sarfaesi notice dated 30/03/2019
B5- Addendum offer letter dated 11/07/2006
PW1-Complainant
Pw2- K P Pavithran-Witness of complainant
Dw1-OP1
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
