Haryana

StateCommission

A/897/2015

BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

VANDANA THORPA - Opp.Party(s)

ANIL MALHOTRA

25 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

Appeal No.897 of 2015

Date of the Institution:15.10.2015

Date of Decision: 25.11.2016

 

1.      Bank of India, Sector-20, Panchkula through its Chief Manager.

2.      Bank of India, Star House, SCO No.76-82, Dakshin Marg, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh through its Zonal Manager.

3.      Bank of India, Star House, C-5, “G” Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051, through its Managing Director/Incharge.

                                                                             .….Appellants

Versus

 

1.      Mrs. Vandana Thorpe W/o Sh. Showick Thorpe R/o House No.452, Sector-21, Panchkula.

2.      Sh. Showick Thorpe S/o Sh. Edgar Thorpe, R/o House No.452, Sector-21, Panchkula.

                                                                             .….Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Anil Malhotra, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

                    Mr.Manoj Kumar, Advocate counsel for the respondents.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.      Bank of India and Ors-Opposite parties (for short ‘OPs’) are in appeal against the Order dated 26.08.2015 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby  the complaint of Mrs. Vandana Thorpe and Anr. has been allowed by directing the OPs to recalculate the payments made by the complainants from time to time and to calculate the liability by appropriating at least more than 60% of the EMI amount towards the principal loan amount. On the conclusion of calculation, if any amount is found to have been excess charges as interest, it shall be refunded to the complainants and the Ops shall also be liable to a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainants as the cost of litigation and a sum of Rs.25,000/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to them due to the apparently un-conscionable appropriation of the larger part of the EMI amount towards the interest liability.

2.      Briefly stated, the complainants obtained house loan of Rs.83,00,000/- with IDBI Bank for 20 years and EMI of Rs.85,403/- was fixed. The authorized representative for the OP No.1 approached the complainants and offered lower interest rate and lower EMI from that of the existing running home loan without any change in tenure. The complainants submitted all the requisite documents for balance transferring of existing home loan to the OP No.1 and after confirmation of approval/sanction of loan by the OPs, the complainants were asked to complainant meat the office of OP No.1 for necessary execution of home loan agreement. The complainants visited the office of OP No.1 and examined sanction letter as well as legal documents/home loan agreements. It was found that the OPs had offered EMIs of loan of Rs.92,088/- which was higher than the existing running EMIs with IDBI Bank and contrary to the commitment of representative of OP No.1. The complainants refused to sign the documents whereupon, the Branch Manager after checking and verifying the record as well as the system/computer, told the complainants that due to technical error or system error EMIs of Rs.92,088/- had wrongly been printed instead of Rs,79,674/- on the sanction letter as well as legal documents. Thereafter, the representative for the OP No.1 manually incorporated with corrected EMI and countersigned the sanction letter. The complainants thereupon believing the OP No.1 executed the loan documents and started paying EMIs of Rs.79,764/- on every calendar months from their bank account towards repayment of installments of home loan. However, major portion of installments were adjusted towards interest component and only small part of principal component was deducted from the EMIs. The complainant inquired from the representative of the OP No.1 about the lesser deduction towards  principal components who told the complainants that principal components were not reducing and he further told that they might see the changes towards reducing of principal due courses. The complainants visited the OP No.1 who checked the record from the computer and told the complainants that EMI for the home loan was Rs.90,088/- whereas the OPs were raising EMI of Rs.79,674/- only every month so the principal component was not being reduced from the home loan account. The OP No.1 further told the complainants that if they have any grievances, they might write to the OPs No.2 & 3. The complainants wrote a letter dated 28.11.2014 but they did not get any response from the OPs. The complainants also approached the OP No.2 directly for the redressal of their grievance, but to no avail. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum to direct the OP to refund the amount paid by the complainants in excess of what was actually payable during the period for which the loan was sanctioned by the OPs, interest, Rs.55,000/- as costs of unwanted legal expenses and Rs.5,00,000/- for causing mental harassment and mental agony.

3.      Contesting the complaint, the Ops pleaded that while processing the takeover proposal, there was a deviation with regard to Bank’s standard Housing Loan norms in net take home funds. On considering all deductions, existing at the time of processing of takeover of loan for facilities already availed by the complainants and the proposed EMI, take home funds worked out to 31.74% of the total earning against the Bank of India’s standard norms of 40% of total earning. The monthly installment of Rs.92,088/- was rightly calculated for loan of Rs.83.00 lacs repayable in 209 EMI’s alongwith interest @ 11.50% per annum. On the request of the complainants, the monthly installments of Rs.92,088/- was modified and reduced to Rs.79,674/-. Inadvertently, the number of installments remained unchanged but the complainants could not take undue benefits of the said omission of changing the number of installments, because the rate of interest payable on the loan availed by the complainants which was clearly mentioned in the sanction letter and the same was unchanged. The non-changing of number of installments was an inadvertent mistake and could not be termed as deficiency in providing services to the complainant as they did not suffer any monetary loss. The OP bank worked in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. Despite this, the learned District Forum reject the pleas raised by the OP and accepted the complaint vide order dated 26.08.2015 by granting the aforesaid relief.

4.      Against the impugned Order, the OP has filed Appeal before us contending that the learned District Form has accepted the complaint without any legal justification. The appellant  reiterating the submissions made by it before the District Forum has stressed that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP as the complainants have failed to point out any deficiency in service on their part.

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that as the amount of the EMI was reduced, the major part of the said EMI was adjusted towards the payment of interest and the remaining thereof was adjusted towards principal amount. It is submitted that the loan was availed by the complainants in December, 2011. As a routine, every housing loan borrower obtains interest certificate for every financial year, to avail income tax rebate on the interest and the principal repaid in the housing loan account. In the present case, the said certificates were issued to the complainants, for the period from December, 2011 to 31.03.2012, 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2014. In the said certificates the amount of interest and the principal received by the bank, were clearly and separately mentioned and the complainants never raised any objection of charging of higher rate of interest. This being the factual position duly supported by the documentary evidence does not show any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. When the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant were confronted, he failed to pointed out any deficiency in service on the part of appellant. In these circumstances, we cannot uphold the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Forum and we have no option, but to reverse the same. Consequently, the complaint, which does not disclose any deficiency  in service on the part of OPs is wholly without any merit and the same is dismissed, by allowing this appeal with no order as to costs.

6.      The statutory amount of Rs.15,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

November 25th, 2016

Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.