DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
Consumer Complaint No.53 of 2015
Date of filing:13.02.2015 Date of disposal:30.07.2015
Complainant: Sujit Bhusan Chanda, S/o.Phani Bhusan Chanda, Vill.-Baidya Danga, P.O.-
Rasulpur, P.S.-Memari, Dist.-Burdwan, Pin-713151.
-VERSUS-
Opposite Party: 1. The State Bank of India, State Bank Bhawan, Office at Mada me came
Road, 16th floor, Mumbai-400 021.
2. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Memari, A.D.Branch, Burdwan,
Pin-713141.
3. General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office Samriddhi
Bhavan, 1, Strand Road, Kolkata, Kolkata-700 001.
Present : Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kr. Mandal
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Silpi Majumder
Appeared for the Complainant: Complainant himself.
Appeared for the Opposite Parties: Ld. Advocate Shyamal Kumar Banerjee.
JUDGEMENT
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S 12 0f the Consumer Protection Act, Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs have realized excess interest amount from him in respect of the loan account along with other allegations.
The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that he obtained a house building loan from the State Bank of India, Memari Branch in the year 2005. Accordingly he entered into an agreement with the Bank, wherein it was decided that the rate of will be on floating basis. At that time he deposited his house along with land and LICI in original towards equitable mortgage to the Bank. After taking loan he repaid the entire loan amount along with interest without any default. The loan was sanctioned for Rs.4,29,000/-. Though the Bank paid Rs.1,00,000/- per phase till linton level, but did not pay last phase for Rs.29,000/- which was required to be paid at the time of finishing and for this reason he could not finished his house. It was agreed that the entire loan amount along with interest would be repaid within 10 years by 120 monthly installments and the EMI was scheduled at Rs.6,000/- which was started for repayment from 2005. But surprisingly the Bank started to deduct EMI for Rs.8,000/- after few years. The Bank without giving any information to him paid Rs.1,00,000/- phase wise and after the second installment it started to take Rs.8,000/- illegally, which is a great injustice to him. Though it was settled that the interest will be floating and the rate of interest was scheduled @ 10.25%, but the Bank imposed interest @13.50%, which is beyond the agreement. Several written correspondences was made, but to no effect. The Complainant when intimated the Head Office of the OP-Bank then he was told to make correspondence with the local branch of the Bank as to why excess interest has been deducted. But the local branch without giving any satisfied reply continued to deduct Rs.8,000/- towards EMI including interest @13.50%. It is mentioned that one LICI policy was submitted before the Bank towards equitable mortgage and it was scheduled that after maturity of the said policy the amount will be adjusted with the loan amount, but inspite of this the Bank did not comply with the terms of the agreement and though the LICI intimated the Bank by issuing letter, the Bank did not take any step in that respect. After making payment of the entire loan amount the Bank issued NOC and thereafter he got the maturity amount of the LICI policy without any interest, such inaction on behalf of the Bank is an example of deficiency in service and for this reason he had to suffer pecuniary loss to a great extent. Moreover where floating rate of interest was scheduled, but in case of down of interest rate, the Bank charged on the higher side, which is beyond the agreement and illegal. Several correspondences was made with the Bank requesting to make payment of the last phase of the loan amount of Rs.29,000/-, but till filing of this complaint the Bank did not take any fruitful step. Thereafter finding no other alternative the Complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the Ops to declare the activities of the Bank as illegal, to pay Rs.29,000/- towards last phase of the loan amount, to make payment of compensation as due to non-payment of the said amount he could not finish his house, to declare illegal the deduction of excessive rate of interest, to refund the excess amount as deducted, to make payment of interest on the maturity amount of the LICI policy and compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to him.
The petition of complaint has been contested by the OP-2 by filing written version wherein it is contended that the instant complaint is hopelessly barred by the law of limitation because the cause of action of this case arose in the year 2005 when he took loan from the Bank authority. But he did not file the complaint within two years from 2005 and came to this Ld. Forum in the year 2015 alleging deficiency in service. So this complaint is liable to be rejected on this score. It is further stated by the OP that the Complainant took a house building loan on floating rate of interest and the rate of interest is subject to revision from time to time as per directives of the RBI and so the rate of interest as charged by the bank from time to time was justified. The alleged loan account of the Complainant was irregular as he did not pay the due EMI towards installments regularly and for this reason the bank had declared the loan account as NPA which led to impose additional penal interest rate. In respect of LICI certificate there was no laches on the part of this OP. Therefore as the Complainant has miserably failed to convince the deficient service of the OP-Bank by adducing cogent and convincing evidence, prayer has been made by the OP-2 for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Both parties have filed several papers and documents in support of their respective contentions. The OP-2 has filed the loan statement. The Complainant has filed loan agreement.
We have carefully perused the record and the documents filed by the parties and heard arguments at length from the contesting parties. It is seen by us that in the instant complaint there are some admitted facts i.e. the complainant obtained a house building loan from the OP-Bank, loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.4,29,000/-, both parties entered into an agreement, it was scheduled that the rate of interest will be floating, the rate of interest was declared @10.25%, the entire loan amount along with interest shall be repaid within 60 months, EMI was payable by equal monthly installments, the complainant paid the entire loan amount along with interest, NOC was issued by the Bank authority.
The allegation of the complainant is that the Bank concerned from whom he took house building loan had violated the terms and the conditions of the loan agreement as it deducted more amount towards EMI going beyond the terms, charged interest @13.50% on the loan amount instead @10.25%, did not impose floating rate of interest and moreover did not pay the last phase loan amounting to Rs.29,000/-. For the abovementioned reason he had to face financial stringency and hence this complaint.
On the other hand the contention of the OP-2 is that interest was imposed on floating rate and it had complied with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and moreover as the complainant had failed to pay the due EMI, the loan account has been turned as NPA and due to this reason the last phase of the loan amount of Rs.29,000/- was not paid. According to the OPs there was no deficiency in service on their behalf.
From the loan statement we have noticed that the Bank all along deducted the due EMI towards loan account along with floating rate of interest. It is not forthcoming that the Bank imposed interest component in an arbitrary manner. The complainant has also failed to adduce cogent documentary evidence to show that the Bank going beyond the terms and the conditions had imposed interest @13.5% all along. Therefore, this allegation made by the complainant has no legs to stand upon. We are of the view that admittedly the complainant had failed to pay due EMI within due period on several occasions which is evident from the loan statement. As per the loan agreement in case of default in payment or any irregularity in the account, the Bank reserves the right to levy a higher rate of interest as it deems fit. But the loan statement does not reveal that the bank had opted this right because higher rate of interest was imposed due to floating rate of interest, not whimsically. In respect of non-payment of the last phase amount of Rs.29,000/- in terms of the loan agreement, we are of the opinion that it was mentioned in the agreement that for taking possession in the house the amount of Rs.29,000/- will be paid. But there is no such document in the record from which we can draw the conclusion that the complainant had intimated the Bank through written correspondence the date of taking possession in the house and the last phase of the loan amount was required for that purpose. For this reason the Bank did not disburse the amount. Moreover as the said amount was not disbursed, the complainant did not repay the said amount along with interest. As the entire loan amount has already been repaid and NOC has been issued in favour of the complainant. Now we do not inclined to open further the said chapter. Regarding non-encashment of the LICI policy amount with the loan amount as alleged by the complainant, we are to say that the complainant did not place the cogent document from which it is evident that the Bank inspite of knowing the maturity date did not encash the same with mal-intention. There is no such document placed before us that the LICI had intimated the Bank about the maturity date and amount. Therefore, such allegation does not sustained at all. The complainant has prayed for declaration the activity of the Bank as illegal, but we have no such authority to make any such declaration. As the complainant has miserably failed to prove his allegation by producing cogent documentary evidence, hence the complaint fails to succeed.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint be dismissed on contest without any cost.
(Asoke Kr. Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
