The General Manager, V/S V.R.Rajagopalan, - Consumer Court Case

Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

73/2014

V.R.Rajagopalan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

11 Apr 2017

ORDER

Complaint presented on: 28.03.2014

Order pronounced on: 11.04.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L., PRESIDENT

TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L., MEMBER II

TUESDAY THE 11^th DAY OF APRIL 2017

C.C.NO.73/2014

Mr.V.R.Rajagopalan,

262, Sivaprakasa Nagar,

Redhills Road, Soorapet,

Chennai – 600 066.

….. Complainant

..Vs..

1. The General Manager,

Indian Overseas Bank,

763, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.

2. The Manager,

Indian Overseas Bank,

Villiwakkam Branch,

Perumal Kovil North Mada Street,

Villiwakkam,

Chennai – 600 049.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint : 11.04.2014

Counsel for Complainant : Party in Person

Counsel for Opposite Parties : M/s.A.Sermaraj

O R D E R

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

This complaint is filed by the complainant to refund the excess amount of Rs.43,554/- paid by him and compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

The Complainant had taken a Home Loan from the 2^nd Opposite Party/Bank for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- which was repayable in 120 monthly installments at the rate of Rs.3,600/- per month. The base rate of interest fixed interest at the rate of 7.75% per month. The Complainant has to make repayment of total amount of Rs.4,32,000/- in 120 months. The recovery of the loan amount started at October 2004 to September 2013 for 9 years in 108 months. The Complainant paid a total amount of Rs.4,61,082/- in 9 years and he was actually due to pay at Rs.4,17,528/-. Thus a sum of Rs.43,554/- was collected excess amount from the Complainant.

2. The Complainant made several request to the Opposite Parties and also to ombudsman to refund the excess amount paid by him and however they have not refunded. Hence the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service. Therefore the Complainant filed this Complaint to refund the excess amount paid by him and compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

The Complainant availed Housing Loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the 2^nd Opposite Party and he had also executed necessary loan documents on 07.09.2004 agreeing to repay the loan amount in 120 monthly installments. The base rate of interest is variable from time to time as per the directions of the Reserve Bank of India. The Complainant availed the loan under floating interest rate option. At the time of availing loan, the rate of interest was at 7.75 %. The case of the Complainant that the Opposite Parties have collected a sum of Rs.43,554/- towards excess amount is untenable. Since the rate of interest revised under floating interest rate option the EMI also will differ. The 2^nd Opposite Party has not collected any amount excessively from the Complainant. Therefore, the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

5. POINT NO :1

It is an admitted that the Complainant availed a Housing Loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the 2^nd Opposite Party and agreeing to repay the loan amount in 120 monthly installments at Rs.3,600/- per month and at the time of availing loan the rate of interest was 7.75% and the Complainant also executed Ex.A2 loan papers to the 2^nd Opposite Party and the Complainant also paid a sum of Rs.4,61,082/- towards the loan availed by him.

6. The Complainant alleged deficiencies against the Opposite Parties are that

For the Housing Loan availed by him from the 2^nd Opposite Party the rate of interest was only fixed rate of interest at 7.75% and
The Opposite Parties have collected a total sum of Rs.4,61,082/- instead of he is liable to pay only a sum of Rs.4,17,528/- at the fixed rate of interest 7.75% and therefore he has paid an excess amount of Rs.43,554/- and for the said excess amount he is entitled for refund.

The case of the Complainant is that he availed loan under fixed interest rate of 7.75% and the same was pleaded in his Complaint and his proof affidavit. However, the Opposite Parties case is that the Complainant availed loan on a floating rate of interest. Ex.A2 at page 3 contains the terms and conditions of the home loan availed by the Complainant. In the above said terms and conditions it has been mentioned in that the rate of interest is subject to as decided by the bank from time to time. Further at page 5 of the said document the Complainant himself endorsed that “Please sanction the loan under floating rate option”. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the Complainant himself opted for floating rate option in his loan application and not as contended by him that he opted only for fixed rate of interest. Therefore, it is held that the Complainant opted to avail the home loan only at the floating rate interest.

7. The Opposite Parties pleaded in their written version that after availing loan from the year May 2006 to January 2009 the rate of interest has been gradually increased and from 17.01.2009 to 30.06.2009 the rate of interest was decreased and again in was increased till end of 2013. At the time of availing loan the rate of interest was 7.75%. Subsequently the said interest was increased at the floating rate. Since the interest is increased, naturally the EMI also will increase. Therefore, the Opposite Parties have collected a sum of Rs.4,61,082/- against the amount of Rs.4,17,528/- is justifiable. Since the Opposite Parties have collected Rs.4,61,082/- at the floating rate option and the same is correct one, the Complainant has not paid any excess amount toward the loan availed by him and he is not entitled for any refund of excess amount from the Opposite Parties.

8. Since the Complainant availed the loan at the floating rate option and the Complainant has not paid any excess amount towards the loan borrowed from the 2^nd Opposite Party, it is held that the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service.

09. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 11^th day of April 2017.

MEMBER – II PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 22.02.2014 Affidavit issued by the advocate and Notary Public

K.Sampath, M.Com., B.L.

Ex.A2 dated 07.09.2004 Loan papers regarding application, terms and

conditions for the loan sanctioned and loan

sanction for “Home improvement Scheme”

under Subha Graha Housing Loan

Scheme/Home Loans to NRIs

(Direct) AGM, 10B letter CO/CSO/308/2013-