J U D G E M E N T.

        Fact of the Case :-    The Complainant has filed this case U/s 12 of C.P. Act, as he has availed a house loan of Rs. 5,40,000/- (Rupees five lakh and forty thousand) only from S.B.I. Nuapada Branch vide Loan A/c No. 31157702411 on dated 05.05.2010.  The rate of interest as was fixed at Rs. 8% per annum for the first year Rs. 9% per annum for 2^nd year and 3^rd year and floating interest after 3^rd year @ 1.75% below SBAR i.e. 10% per annum.

        The complainant has availed the house loan has been paying EMI of Rs. 4,862/- regularly without any fault to O.P. No. 1.  The complainant has found from the account statement that the interest rate has been charged 8% per annum for the 1^st year from 05.05.2010 05.05.2013 as it was agreed under the arrangement letter duly accepted by the borrower complainant on dated 28.07.2010.

        As per petition the O.P. No. 1 S.B.I. Nuapada has arbitrarily charged higher rate of interest  @ 13.7% from 05.05.2013 to 23.05.2013 and 13.2%  from 24.05.2013 04.05.2015 and 13.35% from 05.05.2015 to 27.01.2016 and  @ 9.55% from 28.01.2016 till date without any intimation to the complainant against the terms and conditions of the arrangement letter.

        The petitioner/complainant has suffered by financial burden and mental agony due to deficiency in service by the O.Ps and the O.P. has to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and the collected higher interest of the O.P. is need to be adjusted towards the repayment of loan.

        The petitioner has relied on the following documents:-

1. Account state A/c No. 31157702411.
2. Copy of loan arrangement letter dated 28.04.2010.
3. Copy of complaint dated 16.01.2016 received by the O.P. and duly acknowledge by the O.P.

The O.P. No. 1 has filed his version on dated 30.8.2016 and the O.P. No. 1 has stated as per arrangement letter the interest has been rightly applied on completion of 3 years from the date of disbursement on dated 05.05.2013 onwards of floating rate of interest is applicable.  On request letter of the borrower the scheme for converting old house loan to new scheme in order to avail the lesser interest, for the Bank has reduced the rate of interest as per new scheme O.P. No.1 from 16.01.2016 and the rate of interest is 9.55% is being applied to the loan availed by the petitioner.  The Bank has messages have been sent to me to time to the petitioner in his mobile number.  Besides that, the change of loan interest rate of different loan facility are published in newspaper as per changing took place.

          The allegation made by the complainant who is a valuable customer of the O.P. informed the matter to the head office relating to the complaint of the complainant in this case.  

          Hence there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 while regarding any banking service for that the allegation in the complaint petition is baseless.

          The O.P. No. 1 has filed through his counsel.  The relevant document of true copy of account statement and computer generated copy of State Bank of India, Nuapada on dated 30.01.2016.

          OP No.2 is the Administrative controller of OP No.1 and the immediate authority .OP No.2 is not a necessary party to reply in this case matter. OP No.2 & 3 neither to reply nor to give compensation for the deficiency caused by them.

          The O.P. No. 3 has filed his version through his Deputy Regional Director he stated the dispute relating to the case is against State Bank of India not Reserve Bank of India.  The Reserve Bank of India is statutory organization constituted under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 to regulate the issue of notes and keep reserve with a view to securing monetary stability in India.  The R.B.I. has only supervision the commercial Banks and Cooperative Banks in the country.

          The R.B.I. is not a party to contact directly between the complainant and the S.B.I. even R.B.I. has no contractual obligation between the complainant and S.B.I.  So the complainant is not consumer of the O.P. No. 3 under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Hence the O.P. No. 3 is not entitled to any relief and compensation of the complainant in this case and it should not maintainable against the O.P. No. 3 i.e. Reserve Bank of lndia.

          The Hon’ble Forum has perused the records and documents filed by the petitioner/complainant and Advocate from the O.P. No. 1, we observed the Bank is financing institute guided by the guidelines prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India and its own arrangement towards, finance, and other advances to its customer without any harassment.  The O.P. No. 1 has collected the interest as per guidelines of the Banks and after lapsation of fourth year the interest rate was changed from time to time as per guidelines of S.B.I.  As per request of the complainant the borrower of the O.P. No. 1 rate interest changed from 28.01.2016 i.e. 9.55% being applied to the loan availed by the complainant.  The O.P. No. 1 has collected the rate interest as per arrangement letter dated 15.03.2010 in regard to home loan and collected interest as per guidelines of the Bank and the petitioner has paid the monthly EMI Rs. 4,862/- (Rupees four thousand eight hundred and sixty two) only.

                                             O R D E R.

          The Hon’ble Forum has perused the records and relevant documents filed by both the parties, we came to conclusion that, the complaint petition of the complainant for the higher rate of interest charged by the O.P. No. 1 is baseless.  The O.P. No. 1 has rightly collected the rate of interest of the house loan amount of the petitioner/complainant for the first 4 years as per arrangement letter and on request of the petitioner the O.P. No. 1 has charged its rate of interest later on as per their guidelines.  Hence this case is not maintainable and disposed off accordingly.

          Order pronounced in the Open Court of the District Consumer District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuapada, this the 11^th day of August 2017.