Date of Filing: 16.08.2011
Date of Disposal: 06.06.2012
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com., B.L., President (FAC)
Sri M.Sreelatha, B.A.,B.L., Lady Member
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., Male Member
Wednesday, the 6th day of June, 2012
C.C.No.135/2011
Between:
1.Nagari Premnath,
S/o N.Hanumantha Reddy,
D.No.2-327, 3rd Road,
Anantapur.
2.Nagari Prabhakar,
S/o N.Hanumantha Reddy,
D.No.2-201, Opp: Park,
2nd Road,
Anantapur. … Complainants
Vs.
1.The Chief Manager,
State Bank of India,
Tadipatri,
Anantapur District.
2.The Regional Manager,
State Bank of India,
Regional Office, Sai Nagar,
Anantapur. … Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri B.Venkata Siva Reddy, Advocate for the complainant and Sri T.Viswanath, Advocate for the opposite parties 1 & 2 and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, Male Member:- This complaint has been filed by the complainants under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 to direct them to pay a sum of Rs.14,332/- towards the penalty amount collected by the 1st opposite party Bank with interest from 19.07.2011 to till the date of realization , Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.4,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The brief facts in complaint are that: - The complainants 1 & 2 are brothers and permanent resident of Anantapur. The complainants obtained housing loans from the 1st opposite party Bank on 19.11.2007. The 1st complainant and his wife Smt.Kalavathi Sitra jointly obtained a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- vide loan account bearing No.00000030278400259 to purchase of flat in Bangalore and a sum of Rs.7,500/- has been charged has loan processing fee. The 2nd complainant and his wife Smt. Nagari Lalitha jointly obtained a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- on 19.11.2007 vide loan account bearing No.00000030278449570 to purchase a flat in Bangalore and a sum of Rs.7,500/- has been charged has loan processing fee. The stipulation for the repayment of the loan was fixed at 60 equal monthly installments and the rate of interest 8% p.a. and the monthly installment was fixed at Rs.33,000/- per month which ends by November 2012. Subsequently the opposite party Bank hiked rate of interest to 11.75% from 8%. The complainants taking hike in the rate of interest as a burden to them, they started repaying the loan with their own finances and cleared the entire loans by 19.07.2011 i.e., 16 months prior to the stipulated period. The 1st opposite party Bank collected a sum of Rs.2,900/- from the 1stcomplainant and Rs.11,432/- from the 2nd complainant, totaling to a sum of Rs.14,332/- towards penalty for the pre-closure of the loan and issued a common receipt for the payments of both the complainants. The complainants questioned the illegal collection of the penalty but the 1st opposite party Bank paid a deaf ear to the words of the complainants. Inspite of directions of Reserve Bank of India not to collect any penal charges from the customers for pre-closure of the loan accounts the opposite party collected the said amount of Rs.14,332/- illegally . Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation as claimed by the complainants.
3. The 1st opposite party filed counter stating that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The complainants are put to strict proof of all allegations made in the complaint which are denied by this opposite parties except which are those admitted herein. This opposite party Bank submits that in the normal course, the bank collects pre payment penalty for hosing loans. But as per circular No.RE/HL/PM/48 dt.21.11.2011 wherein the opposite parties circular shows that e-circular No.PBBU/HL/PM/3 dt.20.04.2011 advising the withdrawal of pre-payment penalty on home loans sanctions on or after 01.05.2011. It has been decided to discontinue the pre-closure/pre-payment penalty on all home loans irrespective of the period for which accounts have run or the source of funds.
4. This opposite party submits that the complainants in the above case have obtained their housing loans on 19.07.2011 and closed their housing loan accounts on 19.07.2011 and as on the date of the sanctioning of said loans the collection of pre-closure penalty was in force and as such this opposite party Bank have rightly collected the said penalty amount from the complainants fro pre-closure of their housing loan accounts. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainants and the question of paying towards mental agony and costs of the complaint does not arise.
5. Further this opposite party submits that to show their bonafides and not to cause any loss to the complainants they are depositing two Demand Drafts dt.23.12.2011 bearing Nos.695027 & 695028 for a sum of Rs.2,996/- & Rs.11,818/- respectively which are in favour of the President, District Consumer Forum, Anantapur being the collected penalty amount together with interest (i.e. F.D. interest rate) upto date for the complainants housing loan accounts as per the advise given to the opposite party to the above said e-circular dt.21.11.2011. In view of the above submissions this opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.
6. The 2nd opposite party filed a memo adopting the counter filed on behalf of the 1st opposite party.
7. Basing on the above pleadings, the following points that arise for consideration are:-
i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on behalf of the opposite parties
1 & 2?
ii) To what relief?
8. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainants have filed his evidence on affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A3 documents. On behalf of the 1stopposite party, the 1st opposite party filed evidence on affidavit and marked Ex.B1 & B2 documents.
9. Heard both sides
10. POINT NO 1:- Basing on the arguments made by the counsel for the complainants there is no dispute regarding taking of the loan by the complainants from the opposite parties and there is not dispute regarding the pre-closure of the loan amount by the complainants on 19.07.2011. The counsel for the complainants argued that the hike in the rate of interest to 11.75% p.a. from 8% p.a. by the opposite parties was the reason fro the pre-closure of their loan accounts as they felt it burden to pay the hiked rate of interest. Hence the complainants 1 & 2 decided to clear the loan on 19.07.2011 i.e., 16 months prior to the stipulated period of time for clearing the loan. In the above circumstances the opposite parties collected a sum of Rs.2900/- from the 1st complainant and Rs.11,432/- from the 2nd complainant, totaling to a sum of Rs.14,332/- towards the penalty for the pre-closure of their loans. Subsequently the complainants questioned the illegal collection of the penalty by the opposite parties which was not considered by the opposite parties inspite of directions of Reserve Bank of India not to collect penal charges from the customers for pre-closure of their loan accounts. The counsel for complainants argued that in the above circumstances the opposite parties collection of penal interest on pre-closure of the loan accounts was an illegal act and this shows their negligence and deficiency of service towards the complainants. Hence, the complainants 1 & 2 are entitle for recovery of the penalty amount with interest from the date of its payment till the date of realization including costs of the complaint.
11. The counsel for opposite parties argued that on the date of pre-closure of loan accounts by the complainants i.e., 19.07.2011 there was no instructions from their higher officials not to collect penal interest on the pre-closure of the loans obtained by the customers and as per Ex.B2. Hence, they have collected the penal interest from the complainants and it is after 21.11.2011. After circular No.RE/HL/PM/48 dt.21.11.2011 Ex.B1 only they were instructed but not to collect any penal interest from the housing loans for pre-closure of their loan irrespective of the date of loan.
12. After hearing the arguments of both the counsel and after perusing the records the fact that the opposite parties Bank received the e-circular No.PBBU/HL/PM/3 dt.20.04.2011 wherein there is a clear mention of a condition that there will be no prepayment penalty for home loans from 01.05.2011 it shows that the complainants does not fall under the said condition as they have obtained the loan in the year 2007 itself. Hence, the opposite parties have collected the penalty amount of Rs.2,900/- from the 1st complainant and Rs.11,432/- from the 2nd complainant as penalty for the pre-closure of their loan accounts. And it is only after the opposite parties received another circular No.RE/HL/PM/48 dt.21.11.2011 wherein they were advised not to collect penalty on home loans for the pre-closure of their loans irrespective of the period for which the accounts has run or the source of funds. In the above circumstances it clearly shows that the opposite parties have collected penal interest on the pre-closure of loan accounts as per the guidelines of their head office. Hence, we are of the view that the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency of service. Hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation for deficiency of service to the complainants.
13. The opposite parties also deposited the penal interest amount collected by the opposite parties from the complainants for the pre-closure of the loan account along with F.D. rate of interest in the name of the President, District Consumer Forum, Anantapur. Hence we are of the view that the opposite parries have not committed any deficiency of service.
14. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs. The complainants are directed to withdraw the amount deposited by the opposite party.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 6th day of June, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
NIL
ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
-NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANTS
Ex.A1 pay-in clip dt.19.07.2011 for Rs.14,332/- of S.B.I Anantapur.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of statement of account relating to the 1st complainant and
his wife issued by the 1st opposite party for the period 01.11.2007 to
31.07.2011.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of letter dt.09.05.2011 issued by the Settlers India, Haryana.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
Ex.B1 E-circular bearing No.743/2011-12 Circular No.NBG/PTU/HL-Home
loans /48/2011-12 dt.21.11.2011.
Ex.AB2 e-circulr bearing serial No.53/2011-12 circular No.NBG/PBU/HL/Home Loans /4/2001-12 dt.20.04.2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR