District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.93/2020.

 Date of Institution: 13.02.2020.

Date of Order: 01.03.2023.

Bijender Kumar Jain so  of Shri Babu Ram Jain, resident of House No.36, Sector-17,Faridabad.

                                                                    …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

1.                The Senior Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office ‘e’ Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110006.

2.                The Manager, Central Bank of India, Shop No.1C, 1/15, Bata Flyover, NIT, Faridabad.

                                                                    …Opposite parties……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

Indira Bhadana………….Member.

PRESENT:                    Shri Atul Mangla, counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh.  J.S.Yadhuvanshi counsel for opposite parties.

ORDER:  

                             The facts in brief of the complaint are that  the opposite party No.2 sanctioned and disbursed a loan of Rs.30 lacs in Sep./October 2010 for a period of 15 years under “CENT SWABHI MAN SCHEME’ of India. This scheme known as “CENT SWABHI MAN SCHEME’ under which loan sanctioned was announced only for the help of Senior Citizens to augment their resources by mortgage of their residential property only at a concessional rate of interest on the loan at the rate of 10% p.a. (Fixed without linking PLR or any other interest).  The complainant had paid and deposited Rs.45.50 lacs approximately against a sanctioned loan of Rs.30 lacs till 31.01.2020 to the opposite party on different dates and the examining balance amount was payable by the complainant comes to Approx. Rs.9 lacs and not Rs.18 lacs approximately shown by the opposite party in his statement was wrong and not binding upon the complainant.  Presently the  opposite party had shown in the account of the complainant Rs.18,19,940/- as balance amount while after paying such huge amount of approx. Rs.45.50 lacs to the opposite party.  On scrutiny of account statement of opposite party who calculated interest @ 12.75% p.a while the rate of interest was 10% p.a. fixed.  This method of calculation of interest adopted by the opposite party without giving any notice or intimation to the complainant for the revised or enhanced rate of interest.  While this scheme was only to help the Senior citizens and not to earn money from them.  The decision of the opposite party for enhancing  rate of interest from 10% p.a. (fixed) at higher rate of interest i.e. @12.75% p.a. was totally wrong against law, arbitrary and moreover against natural justice and deficiency in banking service also.  The enhanced rate of interest @ 12.75% p.a. by the opposite party was not binding on the complainant in any way.  The opposite party started calculating @ 12.75% interest from the very beginning.  Even the

Housing loan by the opposite party bank were being sanctioned @ 8% p.a. as sum charging interest on loan @ 12.75% p.a. totally wrong and torture to the complainant senior citizen.  The complainant requested the opposite party so many times to calculate the interest @ 10% fixed and on 7.8.2019 in this regard a letter handed over to the opposite party No.1 but all in vain.  The complainant sent a legal notice dated 9.12.2019  through his counsel to opposite party but all in vain.  The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:

a)                calculate the interest on the loan amount @ 10% fixed.

b)                correct the statement of account of the complainant.

c)                redeem the mortgaged property of complainant after taking the balance amount of Rs.9,00,000/- approximately and as per calculation  upto date

d)                Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper.

2.                Opposite party  put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that  the complainant had not come before this Hon’ble Forum with true facts.  On the other hand, it was submitted that the complainant obtained loan to the tune of Rs.30 lacs under the Cent Swabhiman Scheme in the year 2010 and the opposite party bank executed the loan agreement of the terms and conditions of the said loan accepted duly signed the complainant on loan documents.  Further the rate of interest was 10% p.a. with monthly rests and the same was variable and changes from time to time as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India.

                   It was submitted that  as per the statement of account of the complainant the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.12,11,964/- principle to till date

leaving debit balance of Rs.17,88,036/-.  It was submitted that a sum of Rs.18,19,940/- was the outstanding balance in the said loan account of the complainant.  The opposite party bank had charged rate of interest from time to time as per the directives of the Reserve Bank of India issued from time to time.    There was no mistake in the calculation of the outstanding balance in the loan account of the complainant.  Opposite parties denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

5.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party – Central Bank of India with the prayer to : a)          calculate the interest on the loan amount @ 10% fixed. b)        correct the statement of account of the complainant. c)    redeem the mortgaged property of complainant after taking the balance amount of Rs.9,00,000/- approximately and as per calculation  upto date. d) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper.

                   To establish his case the complainant  has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of  Shri Bijender Kumar Jain,, Ex.C-1(colly) -  sanctioned and disbursed a loan of Rs.30,00,000/-, Ex.C-2 -  details of amount deposited and interest accrued from October, 2019 to January,2020, Ex.C-3 – statement of account, Ex.C-4 – letter written by the complainant to the Central Bank of India, Ex.C-5 & 6 – copy of emails., Ex.C-7 – legal notice, Ex.C-8 & 9 – postal receipts,

                   On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of  Shri

Rakesh Meena, Senior Manager, Central Bank of India, NIT, Main Branch, Faridabad, Ex.R-1 – Statement of account, Ex.R-2 – Circular dated 09.08.2016.

6.                In this case, the opposite party No.2 sanctioned and disbursed a loan of Rs.30 lacs in Sep./October 2010 for a period of 15 years under “CENT SWABHI MAN SCHEME’ of India vide Instruction Circular No. 272/2007 & 456 dated 9.2.2009 i.e Ex.C1 (colly).

Excess interest on the sanction loan – the main crux of the complaint is whether both the  parties agreed on the fixed rate of interest or on the floating rate of interest.  In this case, written  statement was filed by the opposite party and the complaint was referred to the Mediator.    Both the parties have suffered a separate statements  that they are ready for medication before the mediator in mediation center.  Mr. D.K.Gosain was appointed  as a Mediator by this Hon’ble Commission to verify the documents whether the rate of interest is 10% fixed or floating rate or variable. The Report of the Mediator was submitted on  25.2.2022.  But the report of Mediation was not successful and the complainant denied to make compromise after verification.

7.                After going through the evidence led by the complainant vide  Circular Nos. 272 dated 19.12.2007 & 456 dated 09.02.2009  vide Ex.C1(Colly)  and opposite party also tender Circular dated 09.08.2016 vide Ex.R-2. The main case depends about the rate of interest charged by the opposite party and  as per the complainant  loan agreement was executed on  29.10.2010 and the circular Nos. 272 dated 19.12.2007 & 456 dated 09.02.2009 is applicable and  circular dated 09.08.2016 vide Ex.R2 – is not applicable because at the time of agreement that circular was not in the picture.  To prove his case, the complainant has filed the circular with the citation and  also  filed the written submissions  by Shri Atul

 Mangla, counsel for the complainant.  The counsel for the complainant has also objected on the Mediation report.  As per the report of Mediation, no date was given about the circular whether it was  Ex.C1(colly) or Ex.R2.  It is not defined by the Mediator.  The report of Mediation is objectionable.  The objection of the counsel for the complainant is justified.

8.                As per Process Note for “CENTSWABHIMAN’ SCHEME vide Ex.C-1 (Colly) in which at Sl. No.11 i.e. Rate of Interest is mentioned only 10% which was sanctioned by the Chief Manager.  But as per circular No. 272 dated 19.12.2007 vide Ex.C1(colly), in page 5  of Credit Policy in column No.6 it has been mentioned:

Rate of Interest  - 10% p.a. (fixed) subject to reset at the end of 3 years from the first draw down and thereafter every 3 years.

9.                Keeping in view of the above submission, the Commission is of the opinion that the main issue was the circular of the banks.  The complainant has also Retd. Officer of the Bank and he is successful to establish his case.  As per the evidence led by the complainant, the Commission is of the opinion that the loan agreement was executed on 29.10.2020.  Circular No. 456 dated 9.2.2009 vide Ex.C-1(colly) was in existence and the circular  dated 09.08.2016 vide Ex.R2 was  given into the picture after 7 years  of the execution of the agreement.  Issues goes in favour of the complainant.  Hence, the complaint is allowed.

10.              Opposite party is directed to process the claim of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and calculate the amount of the complainant  with   the rate of interest 10% p.a fixed price.   But in Ex.C1 (colly) it shows 10% only.  Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.3300/- as compensation

for causing mental agony  & harassment alognwith  Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  Compliance of this order  be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  File be consigned to the record room.

Announced on:  01.03.2023                                     (Amit Arora)

                                                                                      President

                       District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                         (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                            Redressal Commission, Faridabad.

                                                        (Indira Bhadana)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                          Redressal Commission, Faridabad.