IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 21st day of October, 2020
Filed on 21.05.2018
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar, Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma.BA, LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.132/2018
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Smt. Sujatha.G 1. The Manager
D/o Gowri SBI, Purakkad Branch
Anoop Bhavan Alappuzha
Thottappally.P.O (Adv.C.Parameswaran)
Alappuzha
(Adv.Azeem Muhammed) 2. The Regional Manager
Coir Board Office
Kalavoor.P.O,Alappuzha
(Adv. Joykutty Jose)
O R D E R
SRI. S. SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.
- Material averments briefly discussed are as follows:-
The complainant was the owner of “Manasa coir works, Thottappally”.She was granted a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- by the2nd opposite party out of which Rs.80,000/- was government subsidy under “REJUVENATION, MODERNIZATION & TECHNOLOGY UPGRADATION OF THE COIR INDUSTRY SCHEME OF COIR BOARD, 2007-2012.The loan was allotted to the complainant through the 1st opposite party through loan account No.67149098726.During the disbursement of the loan the 1st opposite party was SBT.
When the complainant approached the 1st opposite party for the disbursement of Rs. 2,00,000/- they allotted only one lakh rupees.When asked about this they told that after the repayment of one lakh rupees they will allot balanceamount of Rs. 1,00,000/-.The loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- was disbursed on 19/5/2011.The tenure of loan was 60 months and it was about to close on 30/5/2016.The EMI was Rs. 2,400/- which was for a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/-.The complainant till 10/10/2014 regularly paid EMI to the tune of Rs. 78,098/-.Complainant was liable to pay only Rs. 74,025/-. The subsidy of Rs.40,000/-was to be deposited by the government.The 1st opposite party had collected excess amount of Rs.40,73/-.
Though the tenure was up to 30/5/2016 complainant repaid the loan amount by 10/10/2014.When the complainant approached the 1st opposite party for balance amount they demanded further payment of Rs.31,959/- for closing the transaction.It was informed that the complainant is included in the CIBIL default list.
Complainant approached Punjab National Bank, Harippad branch for an educational loan and a joint account was opened on 2/5/2014. Since her name was included in the CIBIL list, the loan was not granted.There is no reason for including the name of the complainant in the CIBIL since she had already repaid the loan amount.Later on 30/3/2016 the 1st opposite party from some other account remitted Rs.31,959/- and closed the loan.
Complainant was forced to close down the unit due to the lack of investment since the entire loan amount was not disbursed.The higher study of the child of the complainant was ruined.It caused much hardship pain and mental agony to the complainant.Hence the complaint is filed for realizing an amount of Rs.4,073/- alongwith interest at 9% per annum from 10/10/2014till the repayment which was the excess amount paid. She is also seeking an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- each on account ofnon disbursing the entire loan amount and for wrongly putingEMI for Rs.2,00,000/- instead of EMI for Rs.1,00,000/-. She is also claiming an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for wrongly puting her name in the CIBIL list.She is seeking Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for collecting excess amount of Rs. 4,073/-and also she is seeking a cost of Rs.1,00,000/-
- 1st opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
The complaint is wholly misconceived, bad in law and without any substance.The service rendered by the opposite party is without negligence and deficiency.Complainant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan availed by her.
Complainant availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from 1st opposite party on 19/5/2011 under a Government sponsored scheme Rejuvenation, Modernisation and Technology up gradation of thecoir industry scheme of Coir Board 2007-2012.Complainant had brought a project report for Rs.2,00,000/- but the opposite party had sanctioned Rs.1,00,000/- only as the eligible loan amount.The subsidy for the loan was Rs.40,000/- and the same was credited to the account on 11/10/2014 and 9/5/2015 with Rs. 20,000/- each.At the time of loan closure on 30/3/2016, the opposite party had reversed the excess interest, inadvertently applied in the loan account.Complainant had executed necessary security documents for the loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- only.There was no assurance of giving the balance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- after the repayment of earlier loan.The terms and conditions of the loan are contained in the loan sanction letter and in the security documents executed by the complainant.The allegation that the complainant was disbursed only Rs.1,00,000/- and EMI was given for Rs.2,00,000/- is baseless. The monthly instalments were fixed on mutually agreed terms and the allegation contrary is only an afterthought.
The allegation that the complainant till 10/10/2014 regularly paid EMI to the tune of Rs.78,098/- is false and hence denied.The subsidy as per the scheme was a backend subsidy and complainant is not entitled to claim subsidy at the early stage of the loan.The Reserve Bank of India had linked all the borrowal accounts to CIBIL to fix the credit rating of the borrowers.The linking of borrowal accounts in CIBIL is in tune with the circulars of RBI and based on the undertaking obtained from the complainant. The inclusion of the borrowal account in the CIBIL is statutory in nature.The opposite party is havinginherent powers to share the details of the borrowal accounts to CIBIL as per the circulars of RBI and it cannot be questioned by the complainant.There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party. The complainant had not sustained any loss from the hands of the opposite party.The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
- 2nd opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
This opposite party is not a necessary party.This complaint is filed with ulterior motive to escape from paying the legal debt.The 2nd opposite party had an intention to develop coir industry. As per the direction of Union of India, Coir Board, had introduced a scheme “Rejuvenation, Modernization & Technology upgradation of the coir industry scheme of Coir Board 2007-2012. Concerned bank will disburse the amount considering the repaying capacity of the party.It is prayed that this opposite party is not a necessary party for proper adjudication and hence 2nd opposite party may be deleted from the party array.
- On the above pleadings following points arise for consideration.:
1.Whether there isdeficiency of service as prayed in the complaint?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.4,073/- along with interest as prayed for?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- as compensation on various accounts as prayed for?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as cost of the proceedings?
5. Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1and PW2 and Ext.A1 to A6 from the side of the complainant.Ext.B1 and B2 were marked during cross examination.Opposite party has not adduced any oral evidence.
- Point No.1 to4:
PW1 is the complainant in this case.She filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1 to A6. During cross examination Ext.B1 was marked.
PW2 is the husband of complainant.He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint. Ext.B2 was marked during his cross examination.
The case of PW1, the complainant is that she is the owner of M/s Manasa Coir factory at Thottappally. Government of India had introduced a scheme of Rejuvenation Modernization and Technology upgradation of the coir industry -2007-2012. As per the scheme parties were allotted two types of loans Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/-. She applied for a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- but she was allotted only an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Out of the loan amount Rs. 40,000/- was subsidy. Now her complaint is that she repaid an amount of Rs.78,098/- instead of Rs.74,025/- after deducting the subsidy. She is seeking return of the said amount of Rs.4,073/- along with 9% per annum. Other grievance is that she was not granted Rs.2,00,000/- and only granted Rs. 1,00,000/- and she is seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the same. The 3rd grievance is that EMI for a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- was collected from her instead of loan of Rs.1,00,000/- hence she is seeking Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. Another grievance is that though she had regularly repaid the EMI amount her name was included in the CIBIL list thereby she was prevented from availing loan from other institutions. She is seeking an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for wrongly including her name in the CIBIL. She is also seeking an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for collecting excess amount of Rs.4,073/-. She is also seeking an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Hence the complaint is filed seeking to reliefs in the complaint.
Her case is that as per the scheme though she was entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- only Rs.1,00,000/- was granted as loan by the opposite party bank. Her EMI was fixed as Rs.2,400/- which is EMI for Rs.2,00,000/-. Admittedly PW1 who is the complainant in this case availed a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the scheme introduced by the Central Government through 2nd opposite party Coir Board. It is also an admitted case that Rs.40,000/- was subsidy. Ext.A1 and A1(a) are the application and the credit facilities under the scheme. From Ext.A1(a) it is seen that it was Backend subsidy. In other words subsidy will be adjusted in the loan account only after payment of the entire amount. Now the grievance of the complainant is that though as per the scheme she was entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- she was given only Rs.1,00,000/-. The cross examination of PW1 who is the complainant in this case will show that Ext.B1 is the loan sanctioned letter. She admitted that the conditions prescribed in the loan agreement is binding her. Her case is that though Rs.1,00,000/- was allotted initially the bank had informed that after the repayment of Rs.1,00,000/- she will be given the balance of Rs.1,00,000/-. But she could not produce any document to prove the same. On the other hand, Ext.B1 will show that she was given Rs.1,00,000/- as Medium Term Loan.(MTL). Another contention is that Rs.2,400/- which was fixed as EMI was for Rs.2,00,000/- whereas she was given only a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Hence according to her the EMI shall be half of the same. Here also as per Ext.B1 agreement she had to repay the amount as 60 instalments at the rate of Rs.2,700/- per month commencing from September 2011 and interest should be remitted proportionate along with instalments. Here also she admitted that loan amount was sanctioned and EMI was fixed after an interview with the bank manager. Bank will advance amounts only after considering the repayment capacity of the parties. She frankly admitted that the decision was taken by the bank after a meeting with her and considering her repayment capacity.
Another grievance of the complainant is that her name was included in the CIBIL and thereby she was unable to obtain an educational loan from Punjab National Bank. Ext.A3 is the statement of account. From Ext.A3 it is seen that after paying EMI on 6/9/2012 the next payment is on 12/2/2013. Similarly after paying amount on 20/4/2012 the next payment is on 9/7/2012. If there is a default for three months, the bank will categorize the account as non performing assets (NPA). Here in this case from Ext.A3 statement of account it can be seen that there was default for more than three months and so the bank cannot be blamed for categorizing the account as NPA. If an account is transferred to NPA automatically it will reflect in CIBIL score. The bank cannot be blamed for that because it is as per banking rules introduced by the Reserve Bank of India to stream line the loan transactions of the banks.
PW1 has produced Ext.A5 pass book of Punjab National Bank and contented that her daughter was not allotted an educational loan since her name was included in the CIBIL. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party on a perusal of Ext.A5 there is no mention that the account was opened for the purpose of educational loan. Further as stated earlier since PW1 had defaulted repayment her name was automatically included in the CIBIL score. The cross examination of PW1 reveals that another loan taken by her from the District Co-operative bank was transferred into NPA and bank had taken steps to seize her properties. So the contention that due to inclusion of her name in the CIBIL by the opposite party bank she could not avail an educational loan appears to be not correct.
Another grievance advanced by her is that the bank had collected excess interest from her. From Ext.A3 statement of account it is seen that her loan was closed on 30/3/2016 by crediting an amount of Rs. 31,959/-. It was pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the opposite party that as per Sec.21-A of the Banking Regulation Act. 1949 interest cannot be questioned before a court.
Sec.21-A of the Banking Regulation Act reads as follows. Rate of Interest Charged by Banking Companies not to be Subject to Scrutiny of courts- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Usurious Loans Act, 1918(10 of 1918) or any other law relating to indebtness in force in any state, a transaction between a Banking Company and its debtor shall not be re-opened by any court on the ground that the rate of interest charged by the Banking Company in respect of such transaction is excessive.
So as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st opposite party the rate of interest charged cannot be agitated before this Commission.
Other than the evidence of PW1, evidence of PW2 who is none other than her husband is also available. However it can be seen that PW2 is not a party to the loan transaction and he has come to the Commission only to help his wife. It appears that PW2 was examined only to fill up the lacuna occurred in the evidence of PW1. The admission of PW1 in cross examination clearly shows that she signed Ext.A1 agreement for availing a loan of Rs.1,00,000/-. The EMI was fixed in consultation with her and now she cannot turn averred and say that it was an EMI for Rs.2,00,000/-. She is bound by Ext.B1 and B2 agreements. Though she contended that there was assurance by the bank that Rs.1,00,000/- will be paid after the repayment of earlier Rs. 1,00,000/- there is no evidence to prove the same. Ext.A3 statement of account shows that there was default in repayment of three consecutive instalments on more than one occasion and thereby the account was transferred to NPA. If the account is transferred to NPA naturally the name of the account holder will reflect in CIBIL score. Since it is a backend subsidy the subsidy amount will be credited in the account only at the final stage. PW1 admitted that after adjusting the subsidy amount Rs.31,959/- was credited in her account after recalculating the interest. If that is so it can be safely concluded that none of the grievance of the complainant is sustainable and the complainant failed to prove that there was deficiency of service from the part of the bank. Hence on assessing the evidence as a whole we are of the view that complainant could not prove the case as alleged and so she is not entitled for any reliefs. These points are found against the complainant.
6. Point No.5
In the result complaint is dismissed. Parties are directed to bare respective costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him correct by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 21st day of October, 2020.
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sujatha(Complainant)
PW2 - Narendran(Witness)
Ext.A1 - Application for availing term loan scheme of Coir board 2007-12.
Ext.A1(a) - Copy of Project Profiles.
Ext.A2 - Complainant Loan Pass book(SBT)
Ext.A3 - Statement of account
Ext.A4 - Notice
Ext.A4(a) - Notice
Ext.A5 - Punjab National Bank Pass Book
Ext.A6 - Letter dtd.26-7-2016
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Agreement dtd.19/5/2011
Ext.B2 - Agreement of Loan.
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
