Karnataka

Kolar

CC/15/2024

Sri.M.N.Suresh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Home Construction Nimmitta, KGB - Opp.Party(s)

Kumari Manju.K

31 May 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing: 13/03/2024

Date of Order: 31/05/2024

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

Dated:31^st DAY OF MAY 2024

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:15/2024

 

Sri. M.N. Suresh.

S/o. Late. D. Narayanappa,

Medithambihalli Village,

Huthur Post,

Kolar.

(Rep. by Smt. Kumari Manju. K, Advocate)        ….Complainant.

  

                                                                                                                - V/s –

1. The Manager,

Home Construction Nimmitta,

Karnataka Gramin Bank,

Tambihalli Branch,

Kolar Taluk,

Kolar.

 

2. The Senior Manager (CAC),

Regional Office,

Karnataka Gramin Bank,

B.S.N.L. Building,

Kolar.

(Rep. by Sri. K. Rajkumar, Advocate)  ….Opposite Parties.                      

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the OPs praying for  direction to refund the principle amount and interest paid excessively and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation along with Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.

 

2. The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant on 19/06/2019 to 04/11/2019 he had borrowed the housing loan amount of Rs.13,50,000/- from the OPs Bank.  Further states that, complainant agreed to repay the loan amount in 186 Equi Monthly Installments consisting of Rs.12,650/- for each EMI.  The complainant states that, the loan repayment is deducted from his account every month as per ECS mandate.  It is alleged that, though there is a sufficient balance in his account OP Bank not deducted the EMI from his account from the very next month of the sanctioning of the Housing Loan.  Further states that, when the complainant received message through Phone that OP Bank informed in to pay Rs.14,761/- towards each EMI instead of Rs.12,650/-.  Further complainant states that, due to difference of EMI when he enquired the office of the OP.No.2 Bank regarding EMI of Rs.14,761/-, but the OP Bank not given the satisfactory answer or information and thereon, complainant being the fresh Housing Loan borrower and hence kept silence.  Further states that, once again complainant was visited the OP Bank on 09/02/2024 and discussed with the Manager of the Bank and they informed that, regarding the reschedule of the EMI and alleges that, the reschedule of EMI is made without information to him.  Further complainant alleges that, due reschedule of EMI complainant was paid Rs.1,50,000/- excess amount.  Further states that, totally he has paid about 5 to 6 lakhs excess amount to the OP Bank towards Housing Loan. Further alleges that, due to negligence of the OP Bank complainant make to suffer the above said excess payment to the Bank.  Further complainant states that, though he has borrowed only Rs.13,50,000/- Housing Loan and he had an anxiety to pay Rs.13,50,000/- towards the repayment of the Housing Loan.  On the basis of the above said grounds the complainant alleging the deficiency in service against the Ops filed this complaint.
3. Upon admission of the complaint and on issuance of notice that, the OPs appeared through its counsel and filed its version.

 

4. In the version it is contended that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  Further contended that, to bring the complaint no cause of action accrued to the complainant.

 

5. It is admitted that, the complainant and his wife themselves approached the OP Bank and borrowed the Housing Loan for an amount of Rs.13,50,000/-by executing all the necessary loan documents.  Further the Ops denied all the allegations of the complainant.  Further Ops contended that, while sanctioning loan to the complainant they informed the terms and conditions of the loan and the complainant and his wife agreeing to said terms and conditions executed the Housing Loan documents.  Further contended that as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement OP Bank extended repayment holiday period of 18 months for the loan account bearing No.40842102010619 thereon, account was reschedule,    re-fixed EMI taking in to account the liability outstanding and the date of completion of 18 months i.e principle loan amount + interest and other charges debited during repayment holiday period.  It is contended that, after rescheduling the loan the EMI amount was re-fixed Rs.14,761/- and the same was informed to complainant through SMS to his registered mobile No. 8762210099.  Further submits that, complainant has been repaying loan as per the re-fixed EMI on regular basis without any objection same has been reflected in their loan account statement.  It is contended that, complainant not given any kind of mandate.  Further Ops denied the claim of the complainant and visiting the Branch after reschedule of the EMI Rs.14,761/- and Bank has not given the satisfactory answer.  It is also contended that, complaint is barred by limitation from the date of reschedule of the loan amount.  On the above said grounds Ops prays to dismiss the complaint.

 

6. In order to prove the case of the parties both the parties filed their affidavit evidence and documents.

 

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence placed on record the following points will do arise for our consideration.

 

1. Whether the complainant proves that, the Ops Bank collected excess of interest on the Housing Loan which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops Bank?
2. Whether the Ops prove that, the complaint is barred by limitation?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint?
4. What Order?

We have heard the arguments of both parties.

Our answers to the above points as under:

Point No. (1):-   In the Negative.

Point No. (2):-   In the Affirmative.

Point No. (3):-   In the Negative.

Point No. (4):-    As per the final orders

                         for the following

                             

                             

      REASONS

8. Point No.(1) to (3):-  On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence placed on record and we are of the opinion that, these two points are interlinked to each other and in order to avoid repetition of discussion of facts and for the sake brevity these points will taken up together for common discussion.

 

9. On perusing the pleadings of the parties it is an undisputed facts that, the complainant and his wife were approached the OP Bank for housing loan and submitted loan application on 13/03/2019 as evidence by the document No.1.  It is also not in dispute that, the complainant was borrowed the loan amount of Rs.13,50,000/- as evidenced by the loan sanctioned memorandum dated 31/05/2019.  Further on perusal of document No.3 the Pronote, Housing loan agreement all these documents clearly demonstrate that, complainant was duly borrowed the Housing loan amount of Rs.13,50,000/- for construction of the house, and the complainant agreed to repay the loan amount along with interest @ 8.60% and agreed to pay the same in 186 Equi monthly installment.

 

10. The only allegation raised in this complaint is that, though complainant borrowed the housing loan amount of Rs.13,50,000/- on 31/05/2019 as per the sanction of loan memorandum, the complainant alleges that, though he has given ECS mandate to deduct the EMI immediately from the proceeding month and hence complainant alleged that, due to non deduction of EMI from the proceeding month since the date of loan disbursement and thereon, he suffered paying excess interest.

Per contra, OP contended that, in a housing loan as per the sanctioned memorandum terms and condition extended repayment holiday period of 18 months for the loan account No.40842102010619 and thereon, account was rescheduled and the EMI per month re-fixed Rs.14,761/-after moratorium period and the Bank acted according to Housing Loan terms and conditions.  Further OP contended that, there was no ECS mandate to deduct EMI from his Union Bank of India account after loan disbursement.

 

11. That the complainant except affidavit evidence did not placed any cogent evidence to show that, he was given the ECS mandate to deduct the EMIs in question from the proceeding month since the date of loan disbursement.  Under these circumstances in absence of cogent evidence near allegation is not sufficient to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank.

 

12. It is worth to note that, when there is no dispute regarding execution of the loan agreement and related documents, as we aware of the fact housing loan agreement is also a contract and it is not unilateral but it is bilateral one and thereon, both the parties to the agreement shall abide by it.  The law is well settled that, it was a statutory as well as contractual right of the Bank to proceed in terms of the agreement during loan holiday period (moratorium) period.

 

13.  In the present case in hand there is no allegation about charging the excessive interest by the OP Bank.  The question and the allegation of the complainant is that, the Bank not deducted the EMI immediately after the sanction the loan.  Per contra, OP Bank has given holiday period of 18 months to complete the construction of the building.  The complainant failed to produce any written request given to the OP Bank and compelled it to deduct the EMIs from his salaried account.  In absence of cogent evidence, the allegation of the complainant holds no water though the complainant may be regular in paying the EMIs towards his loan account.

Further complainant failed to prove the OP Bank collected the interest in contravention of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India; there was no other evidence except the evidence filed by way of affidavit. 

 

Further Consumer Forum cannot issue order contrary to RBI directions.  Further in the case of, BOI Finance limited V/s Custodian, wherein the Apex Court had held that, directions issued by the RBI U/s 35a were binding on the Banking Companies.  The Commission held that, no court or tribunal could issue direction to frustrate the provisions of a statute.  Under section 35a RBI is necessary to issue directions to banking companies generally or to any banking company in particular, it may, from time to time, issue such directions as it deems fit, and the banking companies or the banking company, as the case may be, shall be bound to comply with such directions.  Such being the case particularly in housing loan every bank will provide holiday period till completion of the House construction enable the complainant to breath freely to repay the loan amount after holiday period (Moratorium period).

 

14. On perusal of statement produced by the Bank, it discloses that, the loan disbursement date is 31/05/2019 and the complainant was begins to pay the EMIs on 03/08/2020 and paid Rs.14,200/- as per the reschedule of the EMI and it shows complainant himself without any question paid the EMI of Rs.14,200/- on questioning the same he has filed the complaint 13/03/2024 and hence complaint is also hit by limitation.

 

15. On foregoing reasons and we reached to conclusion that, complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs Bank and hence is not entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint.  Accordingly we answered the Point No.(1) In the Negative, Point No. (2) In the Affirmative and Point No.(3) In the Negative.

 

16. Point No. (4):- On the basis of discussion and reasons assigned while answering Point No.(1) to (3) and thereon we proceed to pass the following order:

 

6698606.  

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.  No order as to cost.
2. Send a copy of this order to all the parties to the proceedings at free of cost.

 

                (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 31^st DAY OF MAY 2024)

 

 

      MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT