STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA 261 of 2017
AGAINST
CC No. 716 of 2012, DISTRICT FORUM III, HYDERABAD
Between :
Sri G.M. Ramalingeswara Babu,
S/o M.Subba Rao, Aged about 43 years,
Occ.: Business, Rep. by GPA
Smt. Bhaskara Ramam, W /o M.Subba Rao,
Aged about 65 years, Occ.: Housewife, R/o 1-1-230/2,
Plot No.149 & 150 Seetha Homes Phase-II, Meerpet,
Hyderabad. ……. Appellant/complainant
And
- The Manager, HSBC Bank,
Somajiguda Branch, Hyderabad.
- The Manager, HSBC Ltd., II nd Floor,
Intel net Tower –II, Plot CTS, 1406/A/22/Mind Space,
Behind In Orbit Mall, New Link Road, Goregoan (West),
Mumbai – 400 064. ……. Respondents/Opposite Parties
(Amended as per orders in I.A.No.25/2016, dated 07-04-2016.)
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. V. Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. N. Chandrasekhar
Coram :
Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Monday, the Fourth Day of June
Two Thousand Eighteen
Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 16/02/2017 made in CC. 716 of 2012 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM III, Hyderabad.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he obtained a housing loan of Rs.20.00 lakhs from the first opposite party in the year 2006 for the purpose of constructing a house on plot No.’s 149 and 150 in premises No.4-66/28, Phase – II Seetha Homes, Near TRR Polytechnic College, Meerpet, Hyderabad, vide loan Account No.081140055-001 and Opposite Party released a sum of Rs.19.00 lakh in a phase manner as per the progress of construction. Later he informed them the balance amount of Rs.one lakh is not required; He paid various amounts to the opposite parties thinking that they would adjust the same towards EMIS to be fixed. Despite many requests, EMIs were not fixed. He paid a sum of Rs.11,64,434/- as on date until February 2012.. When the G.P.A. holder, who is his mother, enquired with the Opposite Party with regard to fixation of the EMIs, she was informed that the loan of the Complainant was sanctioned under a scheme titled as “Smart Loan” with floating rate of interest and that it was not housing loan. The Complainant registered a protest on 26-08-2011 but the opposite party No.1 failed to respond to the same. He had never applied for the “Smart Loan” but the opposite parties unilaterally sanctioned a loan as “Smart Loan”, contradictory to the housing loan applied by him. He issued a legal notice, dated 20-02-2012 demanding for fixation of EMIs for the sum of Rs.19.00 lakh under the housing loan scheme, but there was no reply. Vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties, he filed the present complaint praying for a direction to the opposite parties to adjust the amount paid by him towards housing loan of Rs.19.00 lakh and fix EMIs payable by him. Hence the complaint to 0direct the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 to adjust the amount so far paid by him after availing the housing loan of Rs.19,00,000/- and Rs. 5 lakhs towards damages.
4). The opposite parties opposed the above complaint by way of written version, while admitting that the Complainant availed loan of Rs.19.00 lakh (Rupees nineteen lakh only), contending that the complainant filled up his application for loan on 17-04-2006 under the “Smart Home Credit Facility” and hence the loan was not sanctioned under Housing scheme. If the Complainant intends to shift the loan status from “Smart Loan” to “Housing Loan” the same has to be done following the due process. The same was mentioned in a letter, dated 21-03-2012 written to the Complainant that he could transfer his “Smart Loan” to regular EMI service loan by downsizing the loan amount and following the procedures as laid down by the bank. There is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5). During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A9. No documents were marked on behalf of the opposite parties.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal before this Commission.
8). Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the grounds of appeal, rebuttal thereof, along with written arguments filed on behalf of the respondent.
09) The points that arise for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
10). Point No. 1 :
There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant availed loan amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondents/opposite parties and, out of which, an amount of Rs.19 lakhs were already released to the appellant/complainant. There is also no dispute that he discharged an amount Rs.11,64,434/- under the said loan.
11) The contention of the appellant/complainant is that the respondents Bank did not fix EMI despite many requests and representations. On the other hand, they contended that the said loan was not sanctioned under Housing Scheme but it was sanctioned under Smart loan and they informed vide letter dated 21.03.2012 if the appellant/Complainant intends to shift the loan status from “Smart Loan” to “Housing Loan” the same has to be done following the due process by downsizing the loan amount.
12). The District Forum observed that as per ExA5 application dated 13-04-2006 the complainant had applied for a loan of Rs.20.00 lakh under the category “Smart Home Credit Facility”, at a rate of interest of 9% fixing the EMI @ Rs.18,217/- as per floating rate of interest and not fixed rate of interest. Accordingly, the rate of interest was revised to 9.842% on 08-05-2006. The appellant/complainant vide email dated 26-08-2011 brought to the notice of the respondents/Opposite Parties that although he applied for housing loan for a fixed rate of interest, he was sanctioned “Smart Loan” with varying interest on loan. The EMI was not fixed, so he requested the Opposite Party to convert the loan into the housing loan. When the Complainant has affixed a signature to the application form and accepted the loan agreement, he cannot now plead ignorance. The respondents/opposite parties were willing to change the loan status to housing loan with fixed rate of interest following the due process. The complainant therefore has an obligation to comply with the due process and furnish the necessary documents to convert the loan into the housing loan with fixed rate of interest. When he failed to do so the loan continues to be categorized as “Smart Home Loan” (as in Ex.A5) and therefore is bound by the terms and conditions envisaged therein. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/opposite parties.
13). Counsel for the appellant/complainant argued that the District Forum failed to see that the appellant/complainant was not provided with Security Device, code etc, as such, he could not even open/access to his Loan Account to know the status, and therefore, in spite of regularly repaying monthly amounts totalling to Rs.11,64,434/- by February, 2012, still, there was a balance amount of about Rs.19,61,000/- due and payable by the appellant/complainant and further till October, 2016, the appellant/complainant paid all the monthly instalments and hence the complainant has to pay only Rs.18,217/- per month.
14). On the other hand, counsel for the respondents Bank argued that they clearly mentioned in the letter dated 21.03.2012 that the appellant/complainant could transfer his smart loan to regular EMI servicing loan by downsizing the loan amount but he did not do so and since he availed the loan under Smart Home Credit Facility vide application dated 17.04.2006.
15). Perusal of the record shows that the appellant/complainant applied for loan under the category “Smart Home Credit Facility”, @ 9% pa fixing the EMI @ Rs.18,217/- as per floating rate of interest and not fixed rate of interest. The contention that the appellant/complainant is that he was not provided with Security Device, code etc, as such, he could not even open/access to his Loan Account to know the status is not a ground. If he was not provided security device and unable to know the loan details, it is his duty to approach the first respondent Bank and ask them the required information instead of sending e-mails since he is residing in Hyderabad, if he has such grievance. Further, it is not the case of the appellant that applied for changing from Smart loan to regular EMI. Though the respondent Bank instructed that he has to follow certain procedure, without following the same, the appellant claiming from Smart Loan to Regular EMI, which cannot be accepted. It may be true that the appellant might have paid excess amount, but, it is his own fault and he can not take advantage for his own fault.
16). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that there are no merits in the appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.
17). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 16.02.2017 made in CC 716 of 2012 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM III, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 04.06.2018.
