BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.105/2010
Dated this the 23rd day of August 2012.
( Present: Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB. : President)
Smt. Jayasree Kallat, M.A. : Member
Sri. L. Jyothikumar, B.A., LLB. : Member
Mr.Mohammed Koya.P.P., ‘Wood Shadae’ Florcan Hill Road, }Complainant
Karaparamba, Kozhikode. }
(Rep.by Adv. Muhammed Iqubal.K.M, Calicut)
1) The Chief Manager, The Federal Bank Ltd, Nadaklkavu- }
West branch, Nadakkavu.PO, Kozhikode. } Opposite parties.
2) Federal Bank Ltd, Rep.by its Chief Managaer, Nadakkavu }
West branch, Nadakkavu.PO, Kozhikode. }
(Rep.by Adv.Subash Benedict, Calicut)
ORDER
By Jayasree Kallat, Member
The petition was filed on 06.03.2010. The complainant had availed a housing loan from the opposite party on 05.02.2008 agreed to repay the amount with interest @13.75% at diminishing rate by monthly instalment @ 23,138.84 rupees. Amount was to be repaid within 5 years. At the time of availing the loan the opposite party has issued a payment schedule in which the rate of interest and mode of payment was specifically mentioned. The complainant used to pay the amounts regularly on daily basis without fail. As the complainant was not happy with the way in which the amounts were credited in the account. The complainant opted to close the account. Complainant approached the opposite party with a request to close the account within 18 months from the date of availing the loan. Opposite party asked the complainant to remit Rs.12,89,775 towards the principle debt of Rs.10,00,000/-. Opposite party did not provide any account statement to the complainant. While closing the account opposite party had illegally collected Rs.2,89,775/- as interest for 18 months which will come to 19.5% flat rate of interest. The interest for 10,00,000 @ 13.75% will come only Rs.11,458/- per month. Opposite party had collected 91,500/-rupees in excess. The actual total amount is only 1,98,200/-. The act of the opposite party of collecting excess amount from the complainant is alleged to be deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this petition is filed by the complainant seeking relief.
Opposite party No.1 filed version, denying the averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. Petition is not maintainable for non jointer of necessary party the Federal Bank Ltd and for want of jurisdiction as the allegation in the complaint does not constitute any deficiency in service. It is a dispute regarding the interest applied by the bank in the complainant’s loan account with the opposite party. It is not correct to say that the complainant had availed a housing loan agreeing to repay with interest @13.75% at diminishing rate. The loan availed by the complainant was a federal home overdraft loan with 14.75% interest. Complainant had availed Federal Home Overdraft facility as per the sanction order vide account No.13005600003796 at the then prevailing interest rate of 14.75% at an EMI of Rs.23,660 per month. An agreement of Federal Home Overdraft facility was executed by the complainant and co-obligants along with loan documents. The agreement specifically states as follows in Para 3.”The borrower(s) shall pay interest on the loan at the rate of bench mark prime lending rate 1 percentage above the prime lending rate of the bank, as fixed by the bank from time to time(herein after referred to as the BPL( R) plus interest tax as applicable subject to minimum interest rate of 14.75 % per annum with monthly rest and compounded, rising and falling therewith calculated respectively on the daily balance of the amount due or at such other rates that the bank may from time to time stipulate. The present BPLR of the bank is 13.75% and accordingly the borrower shall pay interest at the rate of 14.75% per annum inclusive of interest tax, with monthly rests subject to revision in rates of interest as mentioned above.” The rate of interest at the time of sanctioning and thereafter till the closing of the loan was 13.75%. It is not correct to say that the complainant paid the amounts regularly on daily basis. The opposite party had issued account statement when ever requested. The complainant had paid the entire amount outstanding in his account on 24.09.2009 and closed the account. Opposite party had replied to the complainant’s letter with regard to the interest application in the loan account. OP explained the details of interest charged on each month in complainant’s account which will come to 2,16,694/- from March 2008 to September 2009. Opposite parties have charged only as per the direction of RBI and the guidelines issued from the Head office of the Federal Bank. On 17.03.2009 after one year of disbursement of the loan the drawing power of the account holder should have been only Rs.716080/-. But the balance outstanding in the account was Rs.953402/- and amount of Rs.237322 was exceeded by the drawing power which attracted additional interest of 2% on the amount so exceeded as per Clause 4 of the agreement. The complainant was irregular in repayment and on many occasions exceeding his drawing power. Opposite party has not illegally collected any amount from the complainant. The agreed rate of interest was 14.75%. Opposite party has not violated any of the agreed terms. There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. When ever there was a query from the complainant opposite party had promptly replied. The complainant is not entitled for any relief. Hence opposite party prays to dismiss the petition with costs to opposite parties.
Opposite party No.2 was subsequently impleaded, as per IA.164/2010 filed by the complainant in accordance with the version of OP-No.1. OP No.2 has taken the same contention of OP No.1 stating that complainant has taken a federal Home overdraft loan with 14.75% interest and no payment schedule was issued. Complainant had agreed to the terms and conditions at the then prevailing interest rate of 14.75% at an EMI of Rs.23,660/- per month. The complainant was irregular in making payments. On many occasions he exceeded the permissible limits by drawing excess amount. OP was prompt in providing accounts statement. Complainant has paid the entire amount and closed the account. Opposite party has not taken any excess amount as interest from the complainant. Interest was charged in the complainant’s account at rates as per the directions of RBI and strictly in accordance with the guidelines of OP No.1. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief. There fore OPNo.2 prays to dismiss the petition with costs to the opposite parties.
The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on complainant’s side. No oral evidence adduced by the opposite parties. Exts.B1 to B4 were marked on Opposite party’s side.
The case of the complainant is that opposite party has taken excess money as interest from the complainant for the loan of Rs.10,00,000/- sanctioned by the opposite party’s Bank. According to the complainant opposite party had provided him with a payment schedule, which is marked as Ext.A1 where the rate of interest is shown as 13.75%. But opposite party has taken 14.75% of interest from the complainant. Even though the duration of the loan was for 5 years complainant had closed the loan within 18 months. The reason stated by the complainant is that he was not happy with the way of crediting the amount in the account. Ext.A1 document is a computer print out which shows EMI Calculator with options. It is true that Ext.A1 shows interest rate for 10,00,000/- for a period of 5 years as 13.75%. A1 does not show that it is issued to the complainant. At the same time opposite party has produced Ext.B2 in which name of the customer is mentioned as P.P..Muhammed Koya. A perusal of Ext.B2 will go to show that an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was sanctioned to P.P.Muhammed Koya for a duration of 60 months and the name of the scheme was OD Federal Home Overdraft. Proposed EMI mentioned in Ext.B2 is 23,660/-.The rate of interest shown in B2 is 14.75%.. Ext.B1 is the agreement executed by P.P.Muhammed Koya for Federal Home Overdraft facility. In B1 agreement also the loan was for overdraft facility of Rs.10,00,000/- (Clause 3 of the agreement is that the borrower shall pay interest on the loan at the rate of bench mark prime lending rate 1% above the prime lending rate of the bank as fixed by the bank from time to time plus interest tax as applicable subject to a minimum interest rate of 14.75% per annum with monthly and compounded rising and falling there with calculated respectively on the daily balance of the amount due or at such other rates that the bank may from time to time stipulate. The present BPLR bench of the bank is 13.75% and accordingly the borrower shall pay interest at the rate of 14.75% per annum inclusive of interest tax with monthly rests subject to revision in rates of interest.) Complainant has signed in the B1 agreement. Opposite parties have produced Ext.B3 statement of accounts from 14.03.2008 to 13.05.2010. Ext.B3 shows the withdrawals, deposits and the balance. As per the calculation statement filed by the opposite parties complainant had to pay Rs.12,89,775.00. The complainant had already paid the amount and later on filed petition stating that opposite party has taken 91,500/- in excess from the complainant. Complainant has not filed any calculation statements to prove how opposite party has taken the excess amount. Complainant has filed the petition alleging the rate of interest as per the payment schedule given to the complainant is only 13.75%, but opposite party has levied 14.75% for the loan amount. A perusal of Ext.B1 & B2 has clarified how opposite party has calculated 14.75% as rate of interest. The loan was Federal Home Overdraft which 1% above the prime lending rate of the bank(BPLR) which was 13.75%. In our opinion opposite party is justified in imposing 14.75% of interest which was agreed by the complainant as per Ext.B1 agreement and also signed by the complainant himself. Hence Forum has come to the conclusion that the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the petition.
In the result this petition is liable to be dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court this the 23rd day of August 2012.
Date of filing:06.03.2010.
SD/- PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER SD/- MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1.Payment schedule issued by opposite party dtd. 05.02.2008.
A2.Lawyer notice issued to the opposite party with postal receipt dtd.30.11.2009.
A3. True copy the reply notice dtd.28.12.09.
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
B1. Agreement for Federal Home overdraft facility executed by the complainant and
others.
B2. Sanction order No.194/08 dtd.17.03.08.
B3.Statement of Account from 14.03.08 to 13.05.2010
B4. Reply notice dtd.28.12.09.to the Advocate of the complainant.
Witness examined by the complainant:
PW1.Muhammed Koya (Complainant)
Witness examined by the opposite party
None.
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
