BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.266 of 2015

Date of Instt. 16.06.2015

Date of Decision : 17.11.2015

Dev Raj, aged about 52 years, Junior Accounts Officers, son of Late Ram Kishan, R/o Dy.GMM.NTR, BSNL, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Union Bank of India, Union Loan Point, Civil Lines, Param Market, Jalandhar-144001 through its Manager/Authorized Representative.

2. Union Bank of India (Head Office), Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 through its General Manager/Authorized Representative.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.AS Thakur Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is working as Junior Accounts Officer in the office of Dy.GMM 'NTR' BSNL, Master Tara Singh Nagar, Jalandhar. The complainant took personal loan vide loan A/c No.589606760000019 from opposite party No.1 for Rs. 2 Lacs @ 12% (fixed) interest under Union Comfort Scheme with installment of Rs.4201/- per month. The opposite party No.1 requested the employer of complainant to deduct monthly installment of Rs.4201/- from the salary of complainant and remit the said amount every month to opposite party No.1 in 60 installments commencing from April 2010 for credit to his loan account No.589606760000019. After sanctioning of the above said loan amount, the complainant agreed to repay the loan alongwith interest in 60 installments @ Rs.4201/- to be deducted from complainant's salary and in this regard the complainant authorized his employer to deduct a sum of Rs.4201/- from salary every month for 60 months commencing from April 2010 and remit the amount so deducted to opposite party No.1 to the credit of said loan account. The first installment of loan was deducted from complainant's salary on 7.4.2010 and the last installment was paid to opposite party No.1 in March 2015. As per agreement the complainant paid all the installments of loan in 60 installments @ Rs.4201/- per month and nothing remained balance towards complainant. After repayment of the entire amount of loan alongwith interest, when the complainant demanded No Due Certificate, the dealing clerk of the opposite party No.1 told the complainant to pay balance Rs.18,000/-. The complainant personally visited the opposite party No.1 for getting the NOC but the opposite party No.1 repeated the same language to pay balance Rs.18,000/- otherwise interest would increase on this amount. The complainant sent a notice through registered post to opposite party No.1 intimating that the entire amount of loan has been repaid in 60 installments @ Rs.4201/- alongwith interest as agreed, so, no amount remained balance towards complainant and further requested to issue NOC. In response to above notice, the opposite party No.1 replied that “as per interest applicable from time to time on Union Comfort Scheme under which the said loan was sanctioned, rate of interest charged at floating rate”. The complainant repaid the entire amount of loan with interest as fixed rate @12% under Union Comfort Scheme. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to issue No Due Certificate. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the complainant has obtained the financial assistance from the opposite party No.1 on 6.4.2010 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The complainant has obtained the financial assistance under the MOU signed by the opposite party with BSNL, as per the MOU the employee of the BSNL can avail the financial assistance under the retail loan scheme under Union Home, Union Education, Union Miles, Union Comfort and Natural Calamity loan for one year. The RBD circular No.332 dated 15.4.2009 has been executed between BSNL and the opposite party and the loan of the complainant was sanctioned under the RBD circular No.332 dated 15.4.2009 and all the terms and conditions mentioned in that MOU are applicable to the loan of the complainant. The complainant has availed the loan under Union Comfort Scheme on floating rate of interest. It is wrong that the loan was sanctioned on 12% fixed rate of interest. The loan was sanctioned initially on floating rate of interest 9.5% per annum at monthly rest. The loan was to be paid in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.4200/- commencing from May 2010 and the complainant himself has acknowledged the terms and conditions. It is wrong that the complainant has paid all the installments and nothing is due against the complainant. As per the guidelines of the bank on 17.7.2015 the rate of interest charged on the account of the complainant was 12.50% per annum with monthly rests which is to be charged from 1.7.2015 and the complainant has intentionally not make the payment of interest due in his account which is Rs.18,562/-. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OA alongwith documents Ex.O1 and Ex.OP2 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

6. The main dispute between the parties is, whether the complainant obtained the loan from the opposite party bank on fixed rate of interest or floating rate of interest? It is not disputed that the complainant obtained the loan under Union Comfort Scheme of the opposite party bank. The complainant has placed on record circular dated 14.8.2010 Ex.C1. This circular is of subsequent date. According to the own version of the complainant he took loan in April 2010. The complainant served legal notice Ex.C4 upon the opposite party bank and the opposite party bank sent reply Ex.C5 mentioning that the loan was sanctioned at floating rate of interest. In the letter the interest applicable from time to time are also mentioned. At the time of arguments, the opposite parties have placed on record RBD circular No.332 dated 15.4.2009 and as per this circular floating rate of interest is applicable to loan under Union Comfort Scheme which is mentioned at serial No.4. So at the time of taking loan by the complainant RBD circular No.332 dated 15.4.2009 was applicable and as per this circular floating rate of interest was applicable to loan taken under Union Comfort Scheme. It is also in the affidavit of Sh.Pramod Dharmik, Principal Officer and Attorney of opposite party bank that the complainant has obtained the financial assistance under the MOU signed by the opposite party with BSNL. It is further in his affidavit that the RBD circular No.332 dated 15.4.2009 has been executed between BSNL and the opposite party and the loan of the complainant was sanctioned under the RBD circular No.332 dated 15.4.2009 and all the terms and conditions mentioned in that MOU are applicable to the loan of the complainant. So in the above circumstances, we are of the view that the floating rate of interest was applicable in case of the complainant. As per statement of account Ex.C6 a sum of Rs.18121/- was still due from the complainant as on 30.4.2015. So opposite parties can not be directed to issue No Due Certificate to the complainant.

7. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

17.11.2015 Member Member President