Delhi

East Delhi

CC/436/2021

SATISH KR. KHOSLA (SR. CITIZEN) - Complainant(s)

Versus

UCO BANK - Opp.Party(s)

20 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 436/2021

 

	Sh. Satish Kumar Khosla S/o Tilak Raj Khosla R/O F-24/9, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051   Also at:-   48, Shivalik Apartment, I.P. Extension, Delhi-1100091	….Complainant
Versus
	UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Complex Delhi-110032	……OP

 

                                               

Date of Institution: 28.10.2021

Judgement Reserved on: 06.04.2023

Judgement Passed on: 20.04.2023

                  

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The Complainant is a senior citizen and is retired employee of OP Bank and he has alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP w.r.t. charging excess interest of Rs.2,14,433/- out of which only an amount of Rs.47,852.33/- has been refunded to him and the bank has not refunded the full excess interest amount to him. 
2. The complainant in his complaint has contended that he retired from OP Bank and out of his retirement emoluments he had taken limit/loan of Rs.31,00,000/- against the FDR for repair and renovation of his house. 
3. As per Bank Circular No.CHO 15/2013-2014 upto Rs.3,00,000/- limit/ loan against FDR to staff members the interest was to be charged at par with the FDR interest rate however OP Bank has charged 4% extra interest which has resulted in extra charging of Rs.2,14,433/-.  Against the same, the complainant had filed complaint before RBI Ombudsman wherein the OP bank had explained that as per the calculation sheet the interest was to be charged i.e. Rs.9,49,725.56/- whereas the bank have charged Rs.11,17,948/- and thus there was a difference of Rs.1,68,223/- interest charged from him which bank has not refunded to him and he has made the following prayers:

• Pass a decree with the directions to the opposite party as a refund of Rs.2,14,433/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Three Only) in favour of complainant and against respondent.
• Pass a decree with the directions to the opposite party as compensation of Rs. 2, 00, 000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) in favour of complainant and against respondent.
• Pass any other order of relief which this Commission deems fit and proper in favour of complainant, in the interest of justice.

4. Upon notice, reply was filed by OP wherein it is stated that the overdraft limit given to the complainant was changed on usage basis of complainant and the interest was charged based on the limit availed by him.  Due to some technical error, an amount of Rs.47852/- charged as the overdraft limit was changed from time to time and the said amount was refunded on the complaint filed by the complainant before the RBI Ombudsman.
5. The OP had revised the limit from time to time.  As per the scheme of OP for loan against FDRs for staff and Ex-staff the rate of interest charged is at par with the existing rate being paid on FDR which is revised as and when the FDR is renewed upto limit of Rs.300000/- and above that the rate of interest charged is 2% over and above the rate being paid on the deposit. 
6. Complainant filed his Rejoinder to the reply of the OP wherein he had submitted a certificate from R Prajapati and Associates about the calculation and he has reiterated the contents of his complaint.
7. The complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has exhibited the following documents:

• The copy of the manual calculation is attached and copy of AINTRPT report of the bank regarding interest charge to the account as exhibit EX.CW-1.
• Certificate of the Chartered Accountant as EX.CW-2.
• The copy of the bank circular as EX.CW-3.
• The copy of the bank calculation sheet submitted to the banking Ombudsman as EX.CW-4. 
•  

8. OP has also filed its evidence by way of affidavit wherein they have marked the following documents as exhibits:

• Copy of deponent ID Card is EX.RE/1.
• Statement of account of complainant is EX.RE/2.
• Manual Sheet of interest prepared by OP is EX.RE/3. 

9. This Commission has heard the arguments of both the sides at length and has perused the records. 
10. The case of the complainant is that OP Bank has charged excess interest from him on the limit/loan of Rs.31,00,000/- he had availed.  As per Circular No.CHO/OSD/15/2013-14 dated 03.05.2013 (Exhibit-CW-3) under Para C the following is mentioned:

Thereafter, Head Office vide Circular No.CHO/PMG/22/94 dated 21.07.1994 modified the provisions of circular dated 09.02.1989 and enlarged the scope of concession in interest rate and margin for an advance upto 3 lacs against the Term Deposits maintained in their names to the following categories of persons:

1. Members of the Bank’s staff on permanent employment
2. Retired members of the Bank’s staff
3. Spouse of a deceased member or spouse of a deceased retired member of the Bank’s staff. 

11. As per the said Circular concessional rates of interest was given by the OP Bank to all the staff and ex-staff for an advance upto Rs.3,00,000/- against the term deposits maintained in their names.  This scheme of concessional rates of interest was applicable for Overdraft Limit/ cash credit facility to be used for personal purposes only and in case the transactions observed are of the nature of business transactions, then such advance is to be treated as advance to general public against their term deposits and interest will be charged accordingly. 
12. The complainant had availed limit/loan for repair and renovation of his house which is not disputed by the OP and therefore the said Circular dated 03.05.2013 (Exhibit-CW3) was applicable in this case.  OP has not given any specific reason in its reply as to why the said Circular was not applicable in the case of the complainant nor any documentary evidence in support of their stand that complainant was not entitled for this concessional rate has been submitted by the OP.
13. Though at the time of arguments it was vehemently argued by the OP that it was the complainant who did not open a separate account despite of their advice to avail the concessional rate of interest however on perusal of the said Circular (Exhibit-CW3) it is nowhere mentioned that for availing this concession the complainant had to open a separate account in the Bank.  Thus the OP bank has taken a very vague stand without any basis and rather it is contrary to its own Circular dated 03.05.2013 and therefore there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in charging excess interest from the complainant which it was not entitled to. 
14. The excess rate of interest so charged by the OP was Rs.214433/- as per the complainant and when he (complainant) raised complaint before the RBI Ombudsman then the OP bank refunded an amount of Rs.47852/- to the complainant citing some technical error and thus the differential amount that remains is Rs.166581/- which is under dispute and not Rs.168223/- as mentioned in the complaint. Various letter were exchanged between the complainant and the OP to resolve the issue however the OP could not do so in totality which has led to filing the complaint before this Commission. 
15. For the reasons stated supra this Commission holds the complainant is able to establish deficiency in service on the part of OP and OP is liable for charging excess rate of interest despite of the OP Bank’s Circular dated 03.05.2013 (Exhibit-CW3) which was in force and orders as follows:

• OP to pay Rs.1,66,581/- from the date of sanctioning the limit/ loan to the complainant as per their records with interest @ 6% p.a. 
• OP to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation to the complainant. 
• This Order shall be complied by the OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order failing which OP shall pay interest @ 8% p.a. to the complainant on the above said amounts. 

 

16. This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
17. Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.
18. File be consigned to Record Room.