Delhi

East Delhi

CC/218/2020

ATHAR PARVEZ KHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

02 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. No.218/2020

 

 

	Athar Parvez Khan R/o. B-20/5, Gali No. 4, Block-B, Joshi Colony, I.P. Extn., Dehi-110092.	….Complainant
Versus
	Branch Manager, SBI (Brach Code No. 61251) 461, 461-6A, 461-6B, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. Email: sbi.61251@sbi.co.in	……OP

 

 

Date of Institution: 28.10.2020

Judgment Reserved on: 31.05.2023

Judgment Passed on: 02.06.2023

 

                       

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms.Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

 

Judgment By: Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

1. The complainant has alleged in deficiency in service on the part of the OP in extending his EMI from 48 instalments to 61 instalments and charging the rate of interest more than agreed upon for the loan availed by him towards purchasing a Commercial Car to earn his livelihood..
2. It is the case of the complainant that he had taken loan of Rs. 4,90,000/- from the OP at I.P. Extn., Patparganj Branch on 28.12.2016 for buying Car (Taxi) for earning his livelihood for which 48 EMIs were fixed and he was regularly paying EMI of Rs. 12,660/- w.e.f. 05.02.2017.
3. He paid 39 instalments till October 2020 however in the month of August 2020 when he approached Bank Manager of the OP, then he was informed that total instalments is 61 and not 48 according to the loan agreement signed by him on 21.09.2020. The complainant filed an application to the bank to correct the loan instalments from 61 to 48 and when the complainant asked for the loan file he was informed that the file has been transferred/shifted at the address of the OP. Further one of the official of the OP asked from his colleague that for loan amount of Rs. 4,90,000/- how much EMI for 61 months would be, then he informed that it would be Rs. 9800/-.

Aggrieved by the same the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following prayers:

• That the OP be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant, as compensation, for mentally, physically harassment and agony:
• That the OP be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant:
• That during the pendency of the case, payment of the instalments be stayed.

4. Notice was issued and OP filed its reply denying the complaint made by the complainant and OP has stated that the Complainant was sanctioned Term Loan of Rs. 4,90,000/- on 28.12.2016 for purchasing commercial vehicle (Term Loan A/C No. 36374550837) which was repayable in 48 EMI of Rs. 12,760/- with interest at the rate 10.90% calculated of daily product with monthly rests. As per the agreement the complainant agreed to bear all costs, expenses, inspection charges, CGFMU Fee as mentioned in para 7 & 9 of the Agreement Terms & Conditions dated 28.12.2016 and the rate of interest was Floating.
5. The complainant has deposited EMI of Rs. 12,660/- instead of Rs. 12,760/- and he also deposited two different amounts i.e. Rs. 12,500/- on 21.03.2018 and Rs. 17,313/- on 19.06.2018. OP has further filed calculation in ‘Annexure A’ wherein it has explained that the outstanding amount in the account of the complainant is Rs. 85,858/- (tentative interest + mandatory charges as per Agreement).
6. OP has also stated that EMIs tenure of the loan was not changed from 48 to 61 as alleged by the complainant. On account of the categorisation of the account of the complainant the loan file was migrated from home branch to SBI, SME, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi for further maintenance and recovery of outstanding dues. The complainant can deposit the outstanding amount as per their Annexure to their reply. OP denied that the complainant was informed that for the loan of Rs. 4,90,000/- for 61 EMIs the amount would be Rs. 9800/-. OP has stated that the complaint filed by the complainant is without any merit and the same be dismissed. 
7. Besides the above OP has also filed excess interest charges refund on 11.03.2022 in the Commission and according to which the amount of Rs. Rs. 37,743/- was refundable to the complainant.
8. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the reply of the OP. The complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has marked following exhibits:

• Bank Statement as Exhibit-PW1/1.
• Copy of Loan Agreement dated 28.12.2016 as Exhibit-PW1/2.
• Copy of Application dated 21.09.2020 as 2016 as Exhibit-PW1/3.
• Copy of Long Enquiry 2016 as Exhibit-PW1/4.

9. The OP has also filed its evidence by way of affidavit wherein this marked following documents as exhibits:

• Fresh Statement of Account  as Exhibit-OP1/2.
• Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.

10. This Commission has heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records.
11. Complainant had availed Commercial Loan for buying Taxi to earn his livelihood of Rs. 4,90,000/- on 28.12.2016 (Loan A/C no. 36374550837). As per sanction 48 EMIs were fixed and the interest rate was @ 10.25% p.a. As per the complainant he paid 39 EMI of Rs. 12,660/- and when he went to the OP in the month of August 2020 he was informed that his EMIs have been increased 48 to 61. This fact of increasing of EMI is not corroborated by any documentary evidence by the complainant and as per reply of the OP no such increase in EMI duration was made and EMI stood at 48 only.
12. As per sanction EMI was fixed at Rs. 12,760/- whereas the complainant deposited Rs. 12,660/-. The rate of interest applied in the case was ‘Floating’ and in such cases the rate of interest is flexible and the complainant was also bound to pay CGFMU Charges, office charges as per Agreement which according to the OP comes to Rs. 20,664/-.
13. Further during the pendency of the case OP recalculated the rate of interest and has filed details of excess interest charges collected by them and according to the same the rate of interest charged was @15.40% and more whereas the rate of interest chargeable was @10.90%. Therefore there was excess interest charged by the OP and in their said calculation OP agreed to refund Rs. 37,743.75/- which has been actually refunded also on 09.05.2022. Refund of the amount by the OP on 09.05.2022 itself establishes deficiency in service on their part as OP was entitled to recover only the eligible amount which they have not done and charged extra interest from complainant.
14. Thus the apparent deficiency in service on the part of OP lies to the extent of charging excess interest from the complainant whereas the complainant is bound by the Terms & Conditions of Loan Agreement. In view of the above this Commission holds OP liable for deficiency in service to the extent as stated above and orders as follows;

 

• OP to pay Rs.7500/- to the complainant towards mental harassment and agony.  
• OP to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant towards legal expenses.

This Order be complied by OP within 30 days from the date of the Order and in case of non-compliance, OP would pay the interest @7% p.a. to the complainant on all the above amounts till realization.  

Copy of the Order be sent to the Parties free of cost as per Rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 02.06.2023.