Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/164/2018

Roshan Lal Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

UCO Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Sharma, Adv.

23 Oct 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	164 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	08.06.2018
Date of Decision	:	23.10.2018

 

1. Roshan Lal Sharma s/o Ram Sharma, aged 73 years,

2. Manish Sharma s/o Roshan Lal Sharma,

3. Shama Sharma s/o Roshan Lal Sharma,

All residents of H.No.1109, Sector 12-A, Panchkula.

 …….Appellants.

Versus

 

1.  UCO Bank, Behlana Branch, Chandigarh UT through its Branch Manager, VPO Behlana, Chandigarh U.T.

2.  UCO Bank, Regional Office, Chandigarh U.T through its General Manager, SCO – 55, 56, 57, 3^rd Floor, Sector-17, Bank Square, Chandigarh.

3.  UCO Bank, Corporate Office through its Manager, BMT Sarani, Kolkata – 700001, West Bengal, India.

                                                             ...Respondents.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection   Act, 1986  against   order dated 07.05.2018 passed by District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh   in Consumer Complaint No.437 of 2017.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:Sh. Arun Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

                Sh. Vikas Goel, Advocate for the respondents.

 

PER  RAJESH  K.  ARYA, MEMBER

                   The appellants/complainants have filed this appeal against order dated 07.05.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, their complaint bearing No.437 of 2017 was dismissed with no order as to costs.

2.              Before the Forum, it was case of the complainants that they availed a joint loan amounting to Rs.12 lakhs for the purpose of renovation/extension of their house in Sector 12A, Panchkula from Opposite Party No.1 vide sanction letter dated 31.7.2010. Loan Agreement dated 24.8.2010 was signed between the parties. The grouse of the complainants was, excessive rate of interest charged from them; increasing the sanctioned loan amount from Rs.12.00 lakhs to Rs.12.49 lakhs; unreasonable charging of penal interest; excessive processing fee than agreed in the loan amount.  Rate of interest was 8.75% per annum on floating basis. The complainants have also referred to the EMIs payable. On these averments deficiency in service was alleged and hence a consumer complaint was filed before the Forum. 

3.           The opposite parties, in their reply, stated that Reliance Insurance Company Ltd. had made the insurance policy of Rs.49,470/- of the complainants’ house on 5.10.2010 and the amount was debited from the loan account of the complainants, but, when it came to the knowledge of the bank that the Insurance Company had wrongly made the abovesaid policy, then the bank cancelled relevant policy and the amount of premium refunded by the insurance company to the tune of Rs.49,376.13 was credited in the saving account of the complainants on 31.12.2010.  As such, no loss whatsoever has been caused. On these lines, the cause was sought to be defended. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the opposite parties nor they indulged into any unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             The complainants filed replication wherein they reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those contained in the written version of opposite parties.

5.             The parties led evidence in support of their case.

6.             After going through the evidence on record and submissions of Counsel for the parties, the Forum dismissed the complaint.

7.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/complainants.

8.                          We have heard the Counsel for the parties and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.

9.             Counsel for the appellants/complainants argued that though the Policy was cancelled and the amount of Rs.49,376.13 was credited in the saving account of the appellants/complainants on 31.12.2010, but the Forum failed to appreciate the fact that the appellants/complainants paid interest on the amount of Rs.12,49,376.13 instead of Rs.12,00,000/-. It was further argued that the Forum did not consider the documents given by the appellants/complainants. It was further argued that the Forum gravely erred in overlooking the fact that the affidavit given by  Binoo Arora, Senior Manager of UCO Bank and account statements placed on record clearly showed that penal interest was charged by the respondents/opposite parties. Lastly, it was prayed that the appeal be allowed, impugned order be set aside and the reliefs claimed in the complaint be awarded.

10.           Qua the grouse of the appellants/complainants that the Bank added an amount of Rs.49,470/- in sanctioned loan amount of Rs.12 Lakhs, which increased the limit of loan amount, it may be stated here that sanction of credit facility under project for shelter was accorded in the year 2010 vide letter dated 31.07.2010 (Annexure C-1) and loan amount was increased to Rs.12,49,470/- i.e. by Rs.49,470/-. On realizing the mistake, as admitted by the respondents/opposite parties in their written statement, the opposite parties cancelled the policy and reversed the entry by crediting the aforesaid amount of Rs.49,470/- to the savings bank account of the appellants/complainants. It may also be stated here that cause of action to file the complaint had accrued to the complainants in the year 2010, when the loan amount was sanctioned and when aforesaid amount of Rs.49,470/- charged as premium. The complaint filed by the complainants before the Forum in the June 2017 was purely barred by limitation. As per provisions of Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which provided a period of two years for filing a complaint from the date of accrual of cause of action, the complainants could have filed the complaint within two years from 2010 i.e. by June 2012. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the Forum has rightly held that the mere mistake, which was a human error, if corrected, could not be taken to be deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

11.           As regards allegation of the appellants/complainants that the respondents/opposite parties charged an excess amount of Rs.3,215/- as processing fee, it was the case of the respondents/opposite parties, in their written statement, that the processing fee was charged in accordance with the terms and conditions as mentioned in the sanction letter, which were accepted by the appellants/complainants at the time of sanction. In this regard, it may again be stated here that grievance raised cannot be accepted being barred by time as the appellants/complainants kept silent for four years and in the year 2017, they came out of deep slumber and filed the complaint before the Forum. Therefore, their claim on this account cannot be accepted at this stage.

12.           So far as the grievance of the complainants as regards charging of higher rate of interest and penal interest, is concerned, we may again refer to the observations of the Forum, wherein it rightly held that as per the agreement entered into between the parties, the rate of interest was floating one and was charged as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. We have also perused the Terms & Conditions, ANNEXURE I, annexed with the sanction letter dated 231.07.2010 (Annexure C-1) that the Rate of Interest at Monthly Rests was ‘Floating’ i.e. @8.75% per annum and/or Rate of Interest was subject to change from time to time as per Bank’s Guidelines. The home loan was sanctioned on the base Prime Lending Rate plus 0.75% (floating) and thus, it was charged at 8.75% per annum. Therefore, as rightly held by the Forum, the rate of interest was charged by the Bank in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. The Forum was also right in holding that the complainants did not annex any report or statement prepared by a Chartered Accountant reflecting the particular entry or the rate of interest, which was not as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Qua penal interest charged, the Forum was right in observing that latest entries in the book of account maintained in the ordinary course of business by the opposite parties, produced before the Forum, showed that no penal interest was charged and certain stray entries of penal interest, which were wrongly inserted, were later on deleted by the Bank.  In view of above, the argument raised by the appellants/complainants in this regards being devoid of any substance stands rejected

13.           In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.

14.           No other point was raised by the Counsel for the parties.

15.           For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is upheld.

16.           Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.

17.           File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

23.10.2018.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

 

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 

 

 

 

Ad