Complaint filed on: 07-08-2018
Disposed on: 23-01-2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM,
OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101
CC.No.76/2018
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JANUARY 2019
PRESENT
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT
SRI.BALAKRISHNA V.MASALI, MEMBER
Complainant: -
Keerthi Sreerangaiah,
Student,
D/o. N.R.Sreerangiah,
And N.R.Sreerangaiah
S/o. Late Rangappa, Major,
R/at Ashwin Nilaya,
6th Cross, Ashokanagara,
Tumakuru-2
(By Advocate Sri.G.Sreepathi)
V/s
Opposite parties:-
The Chief Manager,
State Bank of India,
Siddaganga Extension branch,
Tumakuru
(By advocate Sri.Mohamed Afroze Ahamed)
ORDER
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant against the Opposite party (herein after called as OP), under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant prays to consider loan of actual amount availed by complainant to the extent of Rs.8,26,654=00 and to reduce amount of Rs.3,69,685=00 considered as unrealized interest Rev. by issuing fresh statement of account and to order for making payment of Rs.50,000=00 towards compensation, Rs.50,000=00 towards damages and Rs.50,000=00 towards cost in total lRs.1,50,000=00 to the complainant and grant such other relief as deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief fact of the complaint is as under.
The complainant had availed a educational loan from the OP bank to the extent of Rs.13,50,000=00 @ 10.90% interest per annum.
The complainant further submitted that, on 24-8-2011, the OP has debited Rs.14,038=00 towards documentation charges etc. Again on 31-8-2011 the OP has debited an amount of Rs.38=00 as part period interest even without release of loan amount.
The complainant further submitted that, on 23-9-2011 and 22-10-2012, the OP has transferred Rs.5,26,654=00 and Rs.3,00,000=00 respectively to the complainant’s account bearing No.64082880594, to the total extent of Rs.8,26,654=00. As per statement issued by the OP from 24-8-2011 to 1-4-2018, the OP has stated that, the complainant is due to pay Rs.7,28,430=00 including principal amount and interest amount which is not correct and the same is false.
The complainant further submitted that, as per the OP’s Bank Education Loan, terms and conditions, column-1, out of sanctioned loan, the complainant had availed only to the extent of Rs.8,26,654=00 for the purpose of pursuing the course of Masters in Mechatronics at University of SEIGEN, Germany.
The complainant further submitted that, regarding repayment of the said loan, the OP has violated the terms and conditions, as the complainant had made payment regularly 78 instalments out of 96 instalments provided by the OP bank.
The complainant further submitted that, the OP bank has shown in the account statement from 1-1-2007 to 10-6-2018, page-3 dated 14-6-2016 Rs.3,08,238=00 as unrealized interest reve., and also on 30-9-2017 Rs.61,447=00, total extent of Rs.3,69,685=00 excess amount shown without providing any details. Hence, the OP has violated the column-4 of the terms and conditions. The OP bank has issued notice to the complainant vide reference No.ADV/64082880594 dated Nil under Section 13 (2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 to proceed against the mortgaged property which is illegal.
The complainant further submitted that, the outstanding loan amount of Rs.7,28,430=00 is not correct as on 15-4-2018 including interest dues from 16-4-2018.
The complainant further submitted that, on 31-8-2011 the OP bank had released education loan to the extent of Rs.8,26,654=00 to the joint account of complainant and his father Sri.N.R.Sreerangaiah out of sanctioned loan of Rs.13,50,000=00. Whereas due to negligence of OP bank, the OP bank had considered the entire sanctioned loan amount and shown in the account statement. The complainant further submitted that, he had availed loan amount of Rs.8,26,654=00, but the OP bank has demand the complainant to repay the entire loan amount as per account statement given by the OP bank from 1-1-2007 to 11-6-2018. Hence, the OP bank has violated the terms and conditions of the education loan and suppressed the true facts from the complainant. The OP bank has obtained one letter from the complainant’s father Sri.N.R.Sreerangaiah on 7-6-2018 which is an illegal. On perusal of the account statement of OP bank, it came to the knowledge in respect of recovery of Rs.3,69,685=00 as unrealized interest reve. without providing any details. In this regard, he has approached the OP bank on several times and requested them to correct the same, But the OP bank has not responded properly and sent the notice under Section 13 (2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets an d Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002. In this regard, the complainant has sent legal notice through his counsel to the OP bank on 19-7-2018 and the same was received by the OP bank on 20-7-2018. But the OP bank has not replied to the said notice. Hence, no other alternative, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP bank.
3. After service of notice, the OP has appeared through his counsel and filed objection, contending interalia as under:
The present complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and there is no cause of action to file the present complaint. The complainant has suppressed the real facts and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. Hence it is liable to be dismissed in limine.
Without prejudice, the OP submitted that, the complainant is the customer of the OP bank and availed a education loan of Rs.13,50,000=00 on 24-8-2011 vide account No.64082880594 and agreeing to repay the same in 60 EMIs. The OP has denied the debited a sum of Rs.14,038=00 towards documentation charges. In fact, the OP bank has charged a sum of Rs.13,500=00 towards loan processing and document charges and Rs.500=00 towards Cersai Charges, property on loan registration and Rs.38=00 towards part period interest and the same is debited in the complainant’s account in the year 2011. After a lapse of 7 years, the complainant has questioning the same without any reasons and just to harass the OP bank.
The OP further submitted that, as per request of complainant, on 23-9-2011 the OP bank has debited a sum of Rs.5,26,654=00 towards the loan amount as a part payment and on 22-10-2012 the OP bank has debited a sum of Rs.3,00,000=00 to the complainant’s account and in total aggregate the OP bank sanctioned and debited a sum of Rs.8,26,654=00 towards Education Loan. But the OP bank has not sanctioned the remaining loan amount of Rs.6,91,654=00 to the complainant’s account. The complainant has not claimed the tuition fee and other from the OP bank. As per the guidelines of the RBI, the interest portion has been changed from 12% to 11.75%, again 10.90% and again 10.85%. But the complainant has not raised any objections for the less interest charged. The complainant is irregular in paying the interest and account has been declared as NPA on 1-1-2016 and also on 1-6-2016.
The OP bank further submitted that, the Bank has charged a interest only to the sanctioned amount of Rs.8,26,654=00 but not to the remaining amount as alleged by the complainant. The account statement issued by the OP bank is correct and according to law and it is computer generated. The OP bank runs under the public money and there is no any personal interest involved and the bank will act as per the guidelines of RBI and no interest has been charged for remaining loan amount. The OP bank has not violated the terms and conditions of the sanction letter. Hence, the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.
The OP bank further submitted that, when the account is declared as NPA, the OP bank has issued a notice under Section 13 (2) of the Sarfaesi Act, just to avoid the legal consequences. Hence, the complainant has filed the false complaint against the OP bank. Other averments made in the complaint are all denied as false and baseless. The OP bank is not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the complainant. Hence, the OP has prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost, in the interest of justice and equity.
4. In the course of enquiry in to the complaint, the complainant and the OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced documents, where were marked as Ex-C1 to Ex-C13 and the OP has produced documents which were not marked. We have heard the arguments of both sides and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both sides scrupulously.
5. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;
1. Whether the complainant has proved there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
2. What order?
6. Our findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per order below
REASONS
7. On perusal of the pleadings of the complaint, objection of the OP and affidavit evidence of both parties, it is an admitted fact that, the complainant had executed an education loan agreement for availing Education loan of Rs.13,50,000=00 from the OP bank for pursuing the course of Masters in Mechatronics of University of SIEGEN Germany.
8. The main contention of the complainant is that, on 23-9-2011 and 22-10-2012, OP bank had sanctioned loan amount of Rs.5,26,654=00 and Rs.3,00,000=00 respectively. The above said amount was debited to the complainant’s account vide bearing No.64082880594 out of Rs.13,50,000=00. The OP considered the entire sanctioned loan amount of Rs.13,50,000=00 and issued a notice to the complainant under section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act 2002 for recovering amount of Rs.7,28,430=00. Further, the OP bank has illegally recovered an amount of Rs.3,08,238=00 on 14-6-2016 and 30-9-2017 for Rs.61,447=00 total extent of Rs.3,69,685=00 from the complainant’s account without providing details. Hence, the OP has violated the terms and conditions of the education loan agreement. To substantiate the above said facts, the complainant has produced education loan agreement, account statement of education loan and notice issued by the OP bank.
9. Per-contra, the OP submitted that, the OP bank submitted that, on the request of the complainant, the OP bank has sanctioned loan and debited a sum of Rs.8,26,654=00 to the complainant’s account. Further, the OP bank has not sanctioned the remaining amount of Rs.6,91,654=00 to the complainant, because the complainant has not claimed the tuition fee and other from the OP bank. The OP bank has charged a interest only to the released amount of Rs.8,26,654=00. The OP bank acted as per the guidelines of the RBI and not violated the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The complainant is irregular in paying the interest. Hence, the complainant’s account has been declared as NPA on 1-1-2016 and 1-6-2016. Hence, the OP bank has issued a notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act and the OP is not liable to pay any compensation.
10. To substantiate the above said facts, the OP has produced Education loan agreement, Account statement of Education Loan of the complainant and Statutory notice for sale under Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 dated 5-11-2018.
11. On perusal of the Education Loan agreement copy, it is crystal clear that, the complainant had availed a education loan from the OP bank and accordingly the loan agreement was entered between the complainant and OP bank and the complainant has agreed to repay the said loan amount and it was the duty of the complainant to honour the terms and conditions of the loan agreement by paying the EMIs regularly as per the payment schedule.
12. On perusal of the loan account statement produced by the complainant it reveals that, the Ops have charged interest only for released loan amount of Rs.8,26,654=00. Further, it is clearly shows in the account statement that, after availing the loan, the complainant has not paid the loan instalment amount regularly as per the terms and conditions of the Education Loan agreement. Hence, the OP bank has issued notice under Section 13 (2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for recovery an amount of Rs.7,28,430=00. Thereafter, the OP bank has sent auction notice as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. So viewing the case of the complainant, on the back ground of the material evidence of both parties, we are of the considered opinion that, the complainant has utterly failed to prove her case with clear and tangible evidence that, the OP bank is negligent and there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we answer the point No.1 in the negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No cost.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 23rd day of January 2019).
MEMBER PRESIDENT
