Order No. 17 dt. 30/06/2017
The case of the complainants in brief is that the complainants obtained home loan for purchasing a flat being flat no.10, 3rd floor, Block-B, at 85, Jelia Para Lane, Salkia, Howrah from o.p. bank. At the time of obtaining loan an agreement was entered into between the complainants and o.ps. bank and the loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.3 lakhs. It was decided that the complainants should pay the EMI @ Rs.3452/- in 240 installments and the rate of interest was fixed at 12.5% per annum. The complainants in spite of payment of EMIs all on a sudden found that the rate of interest was enhanced @ 15.75% per annum without any intimation to the complainants. Thereafter the interest was again enhanced @ 17.25%. The complainants after making calculation found that he will have to pay Rs.17,14,754/-, though by taking loan amount of Rs.3 lakhs. Since there was unfair trade practice adopted by the bank the complainants filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to make correction of number of EMIs as 240 in placer of 472 and the installment period shall also be corrected as 17.8.01 to 17.8.21 in place of 17.2.03 to 17.5.42 and the rate of interest shall be @ 12.5% per annum and compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that before sanctioning the loan in favour of the complainants o.ps. by signing various documents in favour of the bank and agreed the terms of the loan. It was stated that the rate of interest was 12.5% per annum payable by 240 number of installments EMI @ Rs.3452/-. At the time of sanction of loan the interest payable was 12% per annum and the said rate of interest was to vary because the loan was sanctioned at floating rate of interest as per the complainants’ request and agreed upon by them. The rate of interest is to vary from time to time and such vary varied rate of interest is payable by the complainants / borrowers as agreed by them. The o.ps. further stated that it is the sole discretion of the bank to alter the rate of interest during the period of agreement and the borrower is bound to pay the altered rate of interest. Due to change in rate of interest the EMIs are accordingly altered and rescheduled in such manner the bank decided. The complainants regularly received the statement in respect of the loan account and was fully aware of the variations in the rate of interest. The floating rate of interest may increase and accordingly the complainants cannot make such baseless allegations. It was further stated that the complainants defaulted in payment of EMI and the sum of Rs.2,74,674.11 is due and payable by the complainants as on 15.5.15 with further interest and other charges. The o.ps. did not charge any interest @ 17.25% per annum. The complainants in order to evade the payment of loan amount filed this case against the o.ps. and thereby o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainants took loan from o.p. bank for purchasing a flat?
- Whether o.p. bank provided the loan and the rate of interest was decided as fixed rate of interest or floating rate of interest?
- Whether there was any unfair trade practice on the part of o.p. bank for claiming floating rate of interest from the complainants?
- Whether the complainants will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainants in order to purchase a flat obtained home loan from o.p. bank and at the time of obtaining loan it was decided that the rate of interest would be 12.5% per annum and the complainants on the basis of the said rate of interest agreed to obtain loan from o.p. bank and the bank accordingly sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.3 lakhs and it was decided that the amount is to be paid by the complainants in 240 installments EMI @ Rs.3452/-. The complainants usually paid the EMI but o.p. bank from time to time enhanced the rate of interest flouting the agreement agreed upon by the parties. Because of such enhancement of the rate of interest the complainants have suffered financial loss and the complainants were never informed regarding the enhancement of the rate of interest. In view of such fact ld. lawyer prayed for the number of EMI should be considered as 240 in place of 472 and also the change of period for liquidation of the entire loan amount obtained by the complainants. Since the o.p. bank adopted unfair trade practice the complainants filed this case praying for compensation and other reliefs.
Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the complainants availed home loan of Rs.3 lakhs and at the time of sanction of loan the interest was payable @ 12.5% per annum and the said rate of interest was to vary because the loan was sanctioned at floating rate of interest as per the complainants’ request and agreed upon by them. It is the exclusive discretion of the bank to alter the rate of interest during the period of subsistence of the loan agreement. The complainants failed to pay the EMI regularly and with the enhancement of the interest the amount due to the complainants became higher than that of the claim made by the complainants. In order to evade the agreed terms of loan agreement entered into between the parties to this case the complainants made false allegation against the o.p. bank praying for changing the rate of interest according to their desire and also prayed for compensation for which the complainant will not be entitled to get.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainants approached the o.p. bank for obtaining the home loan for purchasing a flat. It is also an admitted fact that the complainants at the time of obtaining loan furnished some documents including the loan agreement. In the loan agreement it was clearly stated that as per the desire of the complainants the rate of interest was determined on the basis of floating rate of interest. The complainants could not establish the fact that o.ps. did not inform the complainants regarding the alternation of the rate of interest. The documents filed by o.ps. established the fact that from time to time o.p. bank provided the documents to the complainants i.e. the statement of account after adjustment of the EMIs paid by the complainants. It is also found from the materials on record that the complainants failed to pay the installments as per the agreement entered into between the complainants and the bank. The complainants in order to avoid the payment of the loan amount made false allegations against the o.ps. which is substantiated from the documents filed by the bank that the complainants failed to pay the EMI regularly. Because of non payment of the EMI regularly the penalty was imposed as well as with the imposition of the higher rate of interest which was agreed by the complainant the amount due to the complainants became substantial amount and in order to evade the payment of the said amount the complainants made false allegations against the o.ps. that o.ps. demanded excessive amount than that of the agreed amount from the complainants. Since there is no material to provide any relief to the complainants therefore we hold that the complainants will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.392/2014 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
