Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1121/2015

Kailash Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Amit Aggarwal

18 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                              

                                                Complaint No.  1121

                                                Instituted on:    21.09.2015

                                                Decided on:       18.07.2016

 

1.Kailash Rani wife of Shri Tarsem Chand Jindal 2. Tarsem Chand Jindal son of Shri Jagdish Rai Jindal, resident of Thales Bagh Colony, Near Dr. Ashok Hospital, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Union Bank of India, Regional Office: 41/1, Walia Complex, Atma Nagar, Dugri Road, Ludhiana through its Regional Manager.

2.             Union Bank of India, Bara Chowk, Sangrur through its Manager.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Amit Aggarwal, Adv.

For OPs                    :               Shri Sumesh Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : K.C.Sharma, Member.

 

1.             Smt. Kailash Rani and Tarsem Chand Jindal, complainants (referred to as complainants in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 7.5.2008, the complainants obtained a term loan of Rs.8.50 Lacs under mortgage scheme vide account number 6680008024 under interest BPLR +1.50% and interest was to be charged monthly compoundable. It is further stated by OP number 2 that the BPLR would change from time to time and thereafter the loan amount was disbursed to the complainants. It is further stated that on 30.6.2010, the outstanding amount towards the complainants was Rs.6,34,257.54 as per the statement and thereafter in the month of March, 2013, the complainants came to know that the OPs charged interest in excess by applying BPLR method instead of basic rate method as in the month of July, 2010, the Ops issued a circular number 8690 dated 30.6.2010, wherein it is specifically mentioned that interest rate applicable would be linked to BPLR and further it has been mentioned in the circular that the bank would take option from its customers regarding conversion of interest from BPLR to base rate.  The complainants also came to know that circular number 8726 dated 3.8.2010 was issued fastening liability on the bank to issue a registered letter to the customers. It is further stated that the complainants approached OP number 2 in the month of March, 2013 and asked about the same, but the OP number 2 failed to give any satisfactory reply and the OP number started charging the interest as per base rate + 3.75% from March, 2013.  The complainants though approached the Ops for refund of the excess amount, but all in vain.  Further the complainant wrote a letter dated 23.9.2013 to the General Manager of Union Bank of India, New Delhi narrating all facts mentioned about and as such on 25.9.2013, the complainant number 2 received a call from the bank that their loan account would be declared NPA, if the complainants failed to deposit certain amount, as such the complainants on 26.9.2013, deposited the amount of Rs.19654.54 under protest and cleared the account. It is further stated that by charging the BPLR + 1.50%, the OPs charged Rs.35,000/- in excess from the complainants and as such, requested the Ops to refund the amount of Rs.35,000/-, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainants have prayed that the Ops be directed to pay the amount of Rs.35,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from 1.7.2010 till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainants have dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation. On merits, it is admitted that the complainants had taken the loan of Rs.8,50,000/- after signing the application as well as loan documents. It is stated that circular number 8726 dated 3.8.2010 was issued for taking the option  of the consumers with regard to the change of scheme of interest. The OP number 2 intimated the complainants regarding the scheme and for taking options, but the complainants did not opt to convert the scheme of interest on his loan account. It is further stated that as per the circular the Op number 2 displayed the above said scheme of circulars on the notice board. Similarly, the complainant number 2 was also intimated regarding the above said scheme orally and the complainant number 2 was an employee of the bank and very well conversant with the change of interest rate system in all banks. It is stated that the account of the complainants has already been closed in the month of September, 2013 and now in order to get undue advantage, the complainants have filed the false complaint against the OPs. It is stated that the complainants closed the account and deposited the amount of Rs.19,654.54 on 26.9.2013 without any protest.  It is stated further that the actual difference of interest as per bank interest calculation sheet is Rs.6799.82.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainants has produced Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 affidavits, Ex.C-3 copy of statement of account, Ex.C-4 copy of circular, Ex.C-5 copy of letter dated 14.5.2013, Ex.C-6 copy of RTI application, Ex.C-7 copy of letter dated 7.6.2014, Ex.C-8 copy of letter dated 23.9.2013, ExC-9 copy of letter dated 26.9.2013, Ex.C-10 copy of letter dated 10.9.2014, Ex.C-11 copy of annexure-A, Ex.C-12 copy of annexure-I, Ex.C-13 copy of letter dated 3.8.2010 and closed evidence.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of interest calculation sheet and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             In the present case, the version of the complainants is that they availed a loan of Rs.8,50,000/- on 7.5.2008. At that time, the rate of interest charged on the loan account was BPLR +1.50%.  On 30.6.2010 the Ops issued a circular for change of interest from BPLR to base rate. But, the Ops had not changed the rate of interest in the account of the complainant and had been charging earlier rate of interest. It was in March, 2013 that the rate of interest was charged and hence the Ops are deficient in service.

 

6.             In reply, the Ops have admitted that the complainants have availed a loan of Rs.8,50,000/- and the rate of interest was changed on 30.6.2010 from BPLR to base rate. Further the Ops have submitted that the option was required from the customers for the change of rate of interest and the complainants gave their option for changing the scheme of interest from BPLR to base rate for the first time in March, 2013 and accordingly the rate of interest was changed.  Further the Ops have submitted that “since 2010 uptill the filing of the complaint i.e. 21.09.2015, the complainants remain kept mum and as such the complaint is time barred”.

 

7.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the main point of controversy in the present complaint is whether the complainants are entitled for the change of rate of interest and the complaint of the complainants is within limitation.

 

8.             We have gone through the implementation of base rate system and revision in interest rates circular Ex.C-4.  Vide this document the revised rate of interest was applicable from 1^st July, 2010.  In this document at 6.3.2.3. it has been mentioned that “However, if borrower desires to change the base rate before reset date, branches  should obtain fresh set of documents as advised by CLRD at the time of request of the borrower.”.  But, from the perusal of documents placed on record, we do not find any reliable and cogent evidence of the complainants with regard to the request for the change of rate of interest. So, in the absence of any request of the complainants, it was not possible for the Ops to change the rate of interest and to obtain fresh set of documents.  This fact has also been mentioned in the document Ex.C-5, in which the Ops have submitted that “actual rate of interest to be applied on the said account w.e.f. 1.7.2010 vide bank circular number 8690 dated 30.6.2010 is BPLR +1.5%  p.a. as no request for changing the rate of interest to base rate was received.”  This shows that the Ops would have changed the rate of interest if the complainants would have requested. The Ops on the request of the complainant in March, 2013 changed the rate of interest. Moreover, the complainants are demanding the refund of interest prior to March, 2013 and this demand of the complainants is also time barred.

 

9.             So, from the facts mentioned above, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and accordingly, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 18, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member