Haryana

StateCommission

A/236/2015

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

VINOD KUMAR VERMA AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

R.S.BADHRAN

25 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      236 of 2015

Date of Institution:      11.03.2015

Date of Decision :       25.08.2015

 

1.     State Bank of India, through its Branch Manager, Barwala, Panchkula.

 

2.     Ajay Kapoor, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Khatauli (now Barwala) Tehsil and District Panchkula.

 

3.     State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Sector-5, Panchkula, through its Regional Officer/Manager.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

1.      Vinod Kumar s/o Sh. Hari Chand, Resident of Village Barwala, District Panchkula.

 

2.      Parveen Kumari w/o Sh. Vinod Kumar s/o Sh. Hari Chand, Resident of Village Barwala, District Panchkula.

                                      Respondents-Complainants

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                              

Present:               Shri R.S. Badhran, Advocate for appellants.

                             Shri Baljinder Singh, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of opposite parties is directed against the order dated January 27^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Panchkula.

2.      Vinod Kumar and his wife Smt. Parveen Kumari-Complainants-respondents, obtained house loan of Rs.6,80,000/- from State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’), Khatauli. The loan was to be repaid by way of monthly instalments.  The complainants repaid the entire loan to the Bank.

3.      Complainants filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that the loan was raised with interest at the rate of 8% per annum whereas the Bank charged interest at the rate of 12.50% and thus recovered excess amount, which they sought refund alongwith interest besides compensation and cost of litigation.

4.      The opposite parties-Bank contested the complaint raising plea that as per loan agreement Annexure C-5, the Bank was within its right to increase/decrease the rate of interest. The Bank charged interest as per instructions of Head Office. Denying the averments made in the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced by the parties, the District Forum accepted complaint directing the Bank-opposite parties as under:-

“a)     The Ops shall refund the excess rate of interest charged by them and shall also overhaul the account of the complainant at fixed 8% interest per annum.

b)      The Ops shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainants, as compensation of mental agony and harassment caused to them.

c)      The complainants shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- as the cost of litigation.

The Ops shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date its communication to it comes about.”

6.      The rate of interest being 8% is not in dispute. The dispute is only with respect to ‘rests’ which has to be applied. As per the respondents-complainants, the rests should be ‘yearly rests’ whereas according to the appellants-opposite parties-Bank, the interest was chargeable with ‘monthly rests’.

7.      This Commission reverts to the loan documents, that is, Annexure C-5 and C-6. A perusal of the loan documents Annexure C-5 and C-6 shows that the originally ‘quarterly rests’ was printed and after scoring word ‘quarterly’, word ‘monthly’ has been mentioned in pen. Neither the above said cutting has been attested by the complainant nor by the Bank. Unless the cutting is attested by the parties, it cannot be applied. Therefore, in the considered view of this Commission, the rate of interest that could be charged is as mentioned in the loan agreement i.e. 8% with ‘quarterly rests’. The District Forum has failed to appreciate this aspect of the case. 

8.      In view of the above, the appellants-opposite parties are directed to re-calculate the interest on the loan amount at the rate of 8% with quarterly rests and to refund the excess amount, if any, charged from the complainant. Rest of the order is maintained.

9.      The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondents-complainants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 25.08.2015

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL