The petitioner Parimal Ch. Das filed a petition u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act for seeking relief.
The fact of the case is that the complainant/petitioner took House Building Loan from the O.P.No.1 i.e. S.B.I at Hemtabad Branch amounting to Rs.3,00,000/-. The date of commencement of the said house building loan was 19.09.15 and House Building Loan account Number was 11857695730. As per terms and conditions the loan is to be repaid by the complainant/petitioner by 120 equal monthly installments up to September 2015. The petitioner also purchased a S.B.I. Life Insurance policy which covers the H.B.L. loan. The original E.M.I was Rs.3,720/- which was fixed by the bank itself. Accordingly, the complainant/petitioner paid up to September 2015 through cheque from the petitioner’s savings Account Number from same bank. The last E.M.I paid in September 2015. From the petition it is revealed that on 27th day of October 2015 the bank authority i.e. O.P.No.1 again deducted a sum of Rs.3720/- without giving any intimation to the complainant/petitioner resulting 121 E.M.I instead of 120 E.M.I. On being asked the O.P.No.1 told that a sum of Rs.59452/- is still pending in the name of the petitioner. It has been further stated in the petition that as per terms and condition of memorandum of H. B.L term loan agreement issued by the office of O.P.No.1 it has been clearly stated that whenever there is any change of rate of interest will occur, the borrower shall have to be informed either by letter or by e-mail or by statements of accounts or pass book or publishing in the Newspaper. The complainant further asserted that no intimation was given by the O.P.No.1 to the complainant about the enhancement of rate of interest. At that time the complainant/petitioner was suffering from mental harassment due to his daughter’s wedding ceremony and he paid the entire amount amounting to Rs.59,452/-. Thereafter on 11.12.2015 the petitioner filed a written complaint regarding the excess demand of Rs.59,452/- to the office of the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice , Uttar Dinajpur and on 27.12.15 the Branch Manager, S.B.I, Hemtabad Branch replied to the Assistant Director as regard to the complaint made by the petitioner/complainant. The complainant requested O.P.No.1 to refund the excess amount but the O.P.No.1 did not pay heed to his request , as such the petitioner prays for refund the excess amount of Rs.63,172/- with interest from the date of deposit of money along with prayer for compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.
The petition has been contested by the O.Ps by filing the written version denying all the material allegations leveled against them contending inter alia that the petition is not at all maintainable in law and the facts of the petition is barred by principle of estoppels, waiver, acquisence and law of limitation. The petition is false and fabricated and without any basis. The complainant has no locus standi to file this case against the O.Ps. The further defence case is that the complainant is not a consumer under the provision of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant did not come to the Forum with clean hand. The definite defence case is that the loan was sanctioned on 19.09.2005 and the complainant after going through the agreement was satisfied with the terms and condition of the loan and agreed to pay the rate of interest subject to the revision from time to time. Whenever there is change of rate of interest the O.P.No.1 will be published in the notice board of the branch office or it will be informed to the borrower/complainant either by e-mail or statements of accounts or pass book or publishing in the Newspaper. The further defence case is that the rate of change of interest from time to time was reflected in the statements of accounts supplied to the borrower and the bank authority has extended repayment period in respect of the loan and the complainant liquidated the entire excess loan amount on 15.02.16 and all that original documents was handed over to the complainant. There was no irregularity in the deficiency of service on the part of the bank. Considering such facts and circumstances the case filed by the complainant is to be dismissed.
In order to prove the case the complainant himself was examined as p.w.1 and filed some documents. No other witnesses are examined. On the other hand the O.P did not adduce any evidence to their defence.
Now, the point for determination whether the claimant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Now the main point is to be considered whether there was any change of interest of the loan amount and such fact was intimated to the complainant or not. Next point is to be considered whether the complainant had any knowledge about the change of interest.
From the statements of accounts it is found that the rate of change of interest has been reflected in the statements of accounts of the complainant. On perusal of the memorandum of agreement it is found that the borrower shall be deemed to have the notice of change in the rate of interest whenever the changes in SBMTLR are displayed/notified at/ by the branch/published in Newspaper/made through entry of interest changed in the pass book/statements of accounts sent to the borrower. So, on perusal of the memorandum of term loan agreement it is found that the matter of intimation has been prescribed on different items. One item is made through entry of interest charges in the pass book or statements of accounts sent to the borrower. The complainant has filed the statement of accounts where it is found that rate of change of interest has been mentioned in the statements of accounts. So, the complainant had the knowledge about the rate of change of interest. It is expected that the borrower or pass book holder will upto date his pass book to know the amount in the account. But the complainant did not file any pass book or any statements of accounts after taking loan. It is not the case of rate of change of interest has not been mentioned in the pass book. Moreover, in this regard it is to be mentioned that the complainant has paid the entire excess amount and took the all relevant documents as the loan was fully satisfied. So, at present the complainant cannot claim for refund of the excess amount and his claim for refund of the excess amount is stopped by the principle of estoppels. It is not understood why he made the payment though an explanation has been given that due to his daughter’s marriage he was mentally intense and paid money. But in this regard no convincing and cogent evidence comes to this Forum. So, considering the facts and circumstances the prayer made by the complainant is not maintainable. Hence, it is liable to be rejected.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence, it is
ORDERED,
That the instant consumer complaint being No. CC - 16/2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
