Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/158/2015

Dr.M.James Rose Mary - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.M.A.PRAGASH

22 May 2018

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  15.10.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  22.05.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

TUESDAY  THE 22^nd  DAY OF MAY 2018

 

C.C.NO.158/2015

 

 

 

Dr.M.James Rose Mary,

Wife of S.Arokia Maniraj,

No.5/1, Arathoon Road,

Royapuram,

Chennai – 13.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1.The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Post Box No.553,

M.S.Koil Street,

Royapuram, Chennai – 13.

 

2.The Regional Manager,

Zone – I, Region –I, Admin Unit,

State Bank of India No.86,

Rajaji Salai, Chennai – I.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 30.10.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.M.A.R.Pragash

Counsel for Opposite Parties                    : M/s. K.Kumaran, Kavitha Audikesavalu            

                                                                     & R.Vigneswaran       

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to written the original documents and also to return a sum of Rs.2,78,312/- which was collected excessively with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant availed a housing loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the 1^st opposite party branch. He agreed to re-pay the said loan in 10 years at the rate of Rs.4,790/- as EMIs commencing from October 2004 and ends on September 2014. The mode of payment through ECS and complainant paid two EMIs for the months of October and November 2004. However, from the third EMI onwards the 1^st opposite party  deducted a sum of Rs.6,065/- till 01.10.2014. The 1^st opposite party has withdrawn an excess amount of Rs.1,285/- every month for 118 months. The excess amount withdrawn for the said period is Rs.1,51,630/-.Without the consent  of the complainant, the 1^st opposite party deducted the increased EMI from the 3^rd month is deficiency on his part.

          2. The opposite parties are being a bank is expected to act fairly and transparently to provide better service to the customers. In this case without revealing any fact to the complainant, deducting the EMI according to their whims and fancies of the opposite parties are nothing but unfair trade practice. Due to the negligent act of the opposite party the complainant has been dragged from pillar to post without any positive direction or reply from the opposite parties. Hence the complainant sought information from the 1^st opposite party and also received the same from him. Thereafter, he had filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to return the original documents and also to refund a sum of Rs.2,78,312/- which was collected excessively with cost of the complaint.  

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The opposite parties agreed that the complainant availed a housing loan for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the 1^st opposite party branch. As per the terms and conditions of the arrangement letter, the initial interest charged at  8% per annum and further revision of interest shall be deemed to have noticed the changes the rate of interest will be displayed at the branch or paper publication etc.,

          4. The complainant was permitted to re-pay the housing loan in 120 EMIs at Rs.6,065/-. However, due to inadvertently the EMIs filled as Rs.4,780/- instead of Rs.6,065/- in the loan document. When the error was detected, it was brought to the knowledge of the complainant and brought to the notice of the complainant in December 2004 and she had agreed to detect at the rate of Rs.6,065/- per month from December 2004 onwards. Further, the complainant had not raised objection to deduct such amount. The complainant raised certain queries under the RTI Act and the same was suitably replied by them. The claim of the complainant that the opposite parties collected excess amount of Rs.1,51,630/- and seeks refund of the same cannot be accepted. The complainant had paid only the agreed amount of Rs.6,065/- as EMIs. Hence this opposite parties has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.    

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

6. POINT NO :1 

          The complainant availed a housing loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the 1^st opposite party and for the same she executed Ex.B1  arrangement letter, Ex.B2 agreement and Ex.B3 interest rate option letter and Ex.B4 standing instructions to deduct EMIs.  Further it was agreed to repay the said loan in 120 EMIs.  The 1^st opposite party deducted EMIs at Rs.4,780/- on 01.10.2004 and 01.11.2004 for two months and thereafter from December 2004 to till the closure of the loan  a sum of Rs.6,065/- was deducted from his account.

          7. Admittedly the opposite parties agreed to deduct a sum of Rs.4,780/- as EMIs for 120 months by way of ECS from the complainant account and also deducted in the same rate first two months and thereafter started deducting a sum of Rs.6,065/- per month as EMI till the closure of the loan amount. The opposite parties would contend that the EMI amount mentioned as Rs.4,780/- inadvertently instead of Rs.6,065/-.

8. The opposite parties pleaded in their written version para 6 that such error of EMI brought to the notice of the complainant in the month December 2004. However, the complainant would argued that no notice or intimation given to her before deducting the said sum of Rs.6,065/- as EMI from December  2004 onwards. The opposite parties have not filed any document to prove that the said fact was brought to the knowledge of the complainant in December 2004. Further, the complainant sought the EMIs particulars under the RTI Act in August 2014 and October 2014 under the application Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 about the EMIs and even for those applications, the opposite parties furnished information under Ex.A5  dated 28.01.2015  that the EMIs is Rs.4,780/- only. This information furnished after nearly 9 years of deducting raised EMIs of Rs.6,065/-.  Atleast after furnishing such information they could have realized and informed the complainant that the EMIs fixed is error and the correct EMIs is Rs.6,065/- . Till paying the entire loan amount the opposite parties never informed that the EMI of Rs.4,780/- fixed was inadvertently an error.

9. The opposite party would contend that from the 3^rd installments the EMI of Rs.6,065/- was deducted and the complainant did not raise any objection and therefore, the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency. The opposite parties/ bank has got every right to revise the EMI depends upon the interest changes. However, the bank owes a duty to inform the consumer about the change of EMI. Here the opposite parties have not deducted the higher EMI due to revise the rate of interest. They admit their mistakes that at the time of fixing the EMI on error occurred and hence they revised. In such peculiar circumstances of the case the complainant is entitled to get notice from the opposite parties and in this respect without intimation the opposite parties revised the EMI is deficiency on their part and therefore, we hold that the opposite parties 1 & 2 have committed deficiency in service.

10. POINT NO:2

The complainant sought relief to direct the opposite parties to return the original title documents and to direct to refund the excess amount of Rs.2,78,312/- collected from him. During the pendency of the complaint the opposite parties handed over the original documents under Ex.B6 to the complainant and therefore the complainant is not entitled for the said relief further.

11. With regard to refund of the amount, the complainant would contend that the opposite parties fixed for the loan availed by him fixed rate of interest and whereas the bank would allege that the loan availed by him attracts floating rate of interest. With regard to rate of interest there was no clear evidence. Further, the complainant at the time of filing of the complainant pleaded in the complainant that he had paid an excess amount of Rs.1,51,630/- and subsequently amended the said amount in the prayer alone a sum of Rs. 2,78,312/-.For the said amount of Rs.2,78,312/- no documents filed by the complainant. Further, to fix the correct rate of interest for the loan availed by the complainant and whether the complainant actually paid excess amount as stated by him cannot be decided in this Forum and to decide the same, it requires further evidence of both the parties and the same could be decided only in the Civil Court and not in this Forum. Therefore, with regard to relief of refund of excess money the complainant can be directed to approach the Civil Court for his Redressal with the same set of cause of action.

12. The opposite parties  without  intimation to the complainant had enhanced the EMI and such negligent act caused mental agony to the complainant is accepted and for the same, it would be appropriate to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.  

In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties 1 & 2  jointly or severally are order to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. With regard to refund of excess money if any paid by the complainant the Complaint is dismissed with liberty to the Complainant to file a Civil Suit with same set of cause of action within two months from the date of this order and  to work out his remedy if any in the manner known to law.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said compensation amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 22^nd day of May 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 26.08.2014	Application under RTI Act and its acknowledgement
Ex.A2 dated 16.10.2014	Appeal under RTI Act and its Acknowledgement
Ex.A3 dated 05.12.2014	Representation to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to release the document and its acknowledgement
Ex.A4 dated 08.01.2015	Appeal to the Ombudsman - Chennai
Ex.A5 dated 28.01.2015	Reply under RTI by Registered Post
Ex.A6 dated 28.01.2015	Reply under RTI by hand delivery
Ex.A7 dated 10.02.2015	Appeal to Ombudsman, Chennai
Ex.A8 dated 07.03.2015     20.03.2015	Representation to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to release the document and its Acknowledgement Ombudsman Order, Chennai
Ex.A9 dated 07.04.2015	Appeal before the Ombudsman, Mumbai
Ex.A10 dated 26.05.2015	Order of the Ombudsman, Mumbai
Ex.A11 dated 17.07.2015	Reply under RTI Act by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A12 dated 05.05.2016	Letter from the opposite parties to the complainant  in respect of outstanding EMI amount
Ex.A13 dated 09.06.2016	Letter from the opposite parties to the complainant  in respect of outstanding EMI amount
Ex.A14 dated NIL	Acknowledgement receipt issued by the 1st opposite party for the payment of Rs.86,000/-
Ex.A15 dated NIL	Acknowledgement receipt issued by the 1st opposite party for the payment of Rs.4,200/-
Ex.A16 dated NIL	Chelan  prepared for payment of Rs.10,022/-

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

Ex.B1 dated 15.03.2004	Arrangement letter with endorsement of acceptance by complainant
Ex.B2 dated 15.03.2004	Memorandum of Term Loan Agreement for Housing Loan
Ex.B3 dated 15.03.2004	Interest Rate Option Letter
Ex.B4 dated NIL	Standing Instruction
Ex.B5 dated 31.01.2016	Statement of Accounts
Ex.B6 dated 30.07.2016	Acknowledgement receipt
Ex.B7 dated 04.11.2017	Statement of Account of the complainant

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT