Orissa

Jajapur

CC/26/2016

Lilirani Majhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Manager,SBI,Jajpur Town Branch. - Opp.Party(s)

Ramakanta Ghadei.

20 Jun 2018

ORDER

IN  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                                                           

                                             Dated the 20th day of  June,2018.

                                                      C.C.Case No.26 of 2016

Lilirani Majhi    , W/O  Gopinath Majhi

Vill.  Laliteswar Nagar ,   

P.S/ Dist.- Jajpur .                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                   .                                    

                                                  (Versus)

 

1.The Chief  Manager State Bank of India,Jajpur Town branch,

Jajpur.                                                                                                                     ……………..Opp.Parties

                                                                                                                              .                                                                                                                                              

For the Complainant:                               Sri R.K.Ghadei, Advocate ,

For the Opp.Party:                                   Sri P.K.Daspattnaik, Advocate.

  

                                                                                                     Date of order:   20 .06.2018.

MISS  SMITA  RAY , LADY  MEMBER  .

            The petitioner has come with this complain petition alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps.

            The facts relevant for the present dispute as stated by the petitioner shortly are that due to financial stringency the petitioner in the capacity as co-borrower along with  her husband  availed a house building loan of Rs.8 lakh  from the O.p having the rate of interest 9% per annum  on the strength of agreement. After availing the loan the petitioner has repaid the aforesaid loan vide loan A/C No.3088192396 in a compelling circumstances for which the O.p has collected the excess amount of Rs 1,21,616/- to which the petitioner is no way liable to pay. Further as per agreement though the petitioner has cleared up the  entire   loan but the O.ps subsequently changing the higher rate of interest has debited Rs.1,21,616/-  without intimating the petitioner . In case the rate of interest has been enhanced then it was the duty of the O.p to collect the same with the monthly installment but without doing so the O.p arbitrarily has debited Rs.1,21,616/- from the

S.B A/C of the petitioner and such action is nothing but coming under the preview of deficiency in service e . As against such arbitrary action though the petitioner has intimated her grievance to the O.P vide his letter dt. 31.12.2015 with the request to refund the amount of Rs.1,21,616/-  which was debited by O.P from the S.B A/C of the petitioner by compounding the enhanced rate of interest but the O.P after receipt of the letter remained silent. Hence the petitioner has filed  the present dispute with the prayer to award Rs.1,21,616/- loss suffered and Rs.10,900/- as compensation  and Rs.5,000/- legal and miscellaneous charges.

            After appearance the O.P filed the written version where in it is stated by O>p that the petitioner along with her husband had availed a loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from O.p Bank on the strength of agreement .As per term and condition of the agreement the petitioner is required to pay interest  @8% per annum for the 1 st year and there after the petitioner will pay interest @ 9% for two years the same will be as under floating  rate of interest subject to any charge with SBAR.  It was mutually agreed that the loan will be repaid in 120 installments having equal installment of Rs.10,503/- which will commence on e month after disbursement  and 12 months after 1^st disbursement or 2^nd month after completion of construction which is earlier. Further it is stated by O.P at the initial stage though the rate of interest was 8% per annum thereafter  the interest rate has been changed to 9% per annum on 05.05.2010 . Besides this the petitioner from 05.09.2010 to 30.09.2010 could not have repaid  any amount for which the interest occurred there on merged with the principal and made the loan account as such amount . As per arrangement on 05.09.2012 the interest rate has been changed  to for 9% to 13.750% for which the EMI has been enhanced as agreed upon earlier but the petitioner used to pay only the Emi of Rs.10,503/- which resulted the outstanding amount of Rs.1,21,615/-  and collected by O.p at the time of closing the loan account of the petitioner. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P for which the dispute is liable to be dismissed.

            After hearing from both the parties we have perused the pleadings and documents filed by both the parties and after verification of the record we observed  that

            The petitioner has filed the present dispute against the O.P  since the O.P  without informing as well as without following the proper procedure of law arbitrarily has debited Rs.1,21,615/-   from the S.B A/C of the petitioner which is   after repayment of the entire loan of Rs.8,000/- along with agreed interest by the petitioner . In support of the allegation the petitioner

has placed reliance on observation of Hon’ble Supreme court and appellant Forums as stated below :-

1. II C(1995)- CPJ-25 supreme court  where there is specific  term of contract  both the parties are bound by  terms in the contract  .
2. 2000(1) CPR-180-Keral 
   1. “when  the bank by an agreement agreed to charge a particular rate of interest on loan then Bank can not unilateral enchance the interest  rate and consume complaint about higher rate of interest charged would  be maintainable.

C.2010 (2) CLT-16-N.C

            “ Once the loan is sanctioned the loanee come within the definition of  consumer”.

D . R.P No.737/2005 –N.C

“ Agreement between the financer and the consumeris void being violate of essential of section consumer protection Act 1986.”

e.                     Affidavit dt. 17.09.17

f.                     2013(1)CPR-456-N.C

                        “ None  reply of real notice may need to adverse inference against the defendant “.

g.                     34-OJD-1992-279 ,para-4

            “ The complainant was entitled to intimation of ultimate result on the basis of the application “.

h.                      2008(1)CPR-129-N.C

            “In S.B A/C debit entry without consent or due authorization of the customer is deficiency in Bank service “.

                        As against the above situation the O.P has also filed the following documents in support of the stand  which indicates that such collection of higher rate of interest amounting to Rs.1,21,615/- is as per agreement and law.

1.Xerox copy of Housing Apprisal report .

2.Memorandum of loan agreement.

3.Affidavit dt.30.4.2018

4.Term and conditions of SBI Home loan .

            On verification of the  affidavit  of the petitioner dt.20.09.2017 it is observed that the petitioner though has stated in the affidavit that without knowledge and intimation to the petitioner the Bank has debited Rs.1,21.616/- from the S.B account of the petition er but the O.P after receipt of the copy on 20.09.17 vide Annexture-E of the written note of argument has not clarified in the affidavit dt. 30.04.2018 the reasons of non intimation to petitioner prior to debit the amount of Rs.1,21,616/-  even if after receipt of the R.P. letter of the petitioner dt. 30.12.2015

from the S.B A/C of the petitioner nor there is any evidence to prove that the O.P has intimated the petitioner prior to debiting the amount from the S.B A/C of the petitioner.

            The next aspect relates to consider whether the O.p is justified in debiting the amount of Rs.1,21,616/- from the S.B A/C of the petitioner.

            In this contest we have come across with the provision / term and condition of agreement and S.B.I Home loan wherein it is observed vide clause-B of the agreement that

            “ if the borrower is  not agreeable to the revised interest    rate so fixed the borrower can   shall request the Bank within 15 days of receipt of the  notice   intimating change  in interest rules from bank to terminate the loan…………….”.      As such it was the mandatory duty of the O.P  prior to enhancing the rate of interest from 9% to 13.750 % or debiting the amount of Rs.1,21,616/- from the S.B A/C of the petitioner to intimate or give  prior notice to the petitioner either to accept the revised rate of interest or terminate the loan agreement , but as observed in absence of any documentary evidence from the side of O.P , it is cristal clear that the O.P  without giving such opportunity  to the petitioner, the O.P arbitrarily has debited the amount of Rs.1,21,616/- from the S.B A/C of the petitioner which is a clear patent deficiency in service on the part of O.P.

                                                             O R D E R

            The dispute is allowed against the O.P . on contest . The O.p is directed to refund Rs.1,21,615/- to the petitioner within one month after receipt of this order ,failing which the O.P is liable to pay 9% interest on the awarded amount till its realization .We also allow Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) as compensation to be paid by O.P  to the petitioner within one month after receipt of this order.                             

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 20th  day of June,2018. under my hand and seal of the Forum.