Haryana

Ambala

CC/278/2022

Brahm Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sachin Kumar Dhiman

19 Dec 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	278 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	22.07.2022
Date of decision	:	19.12.2024

Brahm Singh, aged about 71 years, son of Sh. Bhikhu Ram, Resident of House No.17-A, Pooja Vihar, Ambala Cantt.

 ……. Complainant

                                                Versus

1. State Bank of India, Branch office at Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt., through its Branch Manager.
2. State Bank of India, Head office at State Bank Bhavan, Madane Cama Marg, Mumbai-400021.
3. State Bank of India, Regional office at Regional Business City Centre, Sector-5, Panchkula-134109.

                                                                                   ….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                     Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:      Shri Sachin Kumar Dhiman, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                     Shri Sanjay Dutt, Advocate, counsel for the OPs

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1.  To make adjustment/refund the amount of Rs.6072/-, charged by the bank in excess from the complainant alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the date of its receipt till realization
2. To impose penalty of Rs.1 crore on the OPs.
3. To pay Rs.1 crore as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
4.  To pay Rs.55,000/- as cost of litigation.
5.  Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit. 

            

2.           Brief facts of the case are that complainant is the senior citizen. Vide LOS application ID-9399843 dated 26.07.2017, the OP-Bank sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs.4,00,000/- as car loan to the complainant. As per sanction letter/loan agreement, the OPs agreed to charge interest on the loan @8.75 % p.a and it was also agreed by the OP bank that the rate of interests viz, 8.75% p.a will be valid for the entire tenor of the loan. Complainant availed the loan facility to purchase Car make Maruti Baleno, 2017, bearing Registration No.HR85-9429. As per the agreement, the loan amount was to be repaid in monthly installment of Rs.9906.6 each commencing from 26.08.2017 till the entire loan with interest is fully repaid. Complainant remained repaying the loan amount regularly in installments as agreed between the parties, but to the utter surprise of the complainant, the bank remained charging installment of Rs.10,000/- instead of agreed installment of Rs.9906.6. Complainant cleared the entire loan amount, which was duly accepted and acknowledged by the OP-bank and it issued No. Due Certificate dated 11.06.2021, to the effect that No dues are pending against the above account as on date 11.06.2021, for the vehicle bearing Registration No.HR859429. Complainant being a good consumer repaid the entire loan amount to the OP, but on the other hand, the OP-bank did not prove itself to be good and its officials instead of charging the loan installment of Rs.9906.6, charged loan installment of Rs.10,000/- per month and also charged the interest at a higher side i.e @ 9.65% instead of agreed rate of interest @ 8.75% p.a. On 18.05.2022, complainant made a representation to the OP-Bank and requested the concerned officials to return the extra amount charged from him but nothing was done. The OP-Bank is very reputed bank and is having its branches throughout India and the entire government transactions are being done through the OP-Bank and the public at large have faith upon it. More than 90% persons with the fear the private bank may not cheat and defraud them, are doing their transaction and to raise loan facilities etc. from State Bank of India with the hope that no cheating and fraud will be committed by the officials of the State Bank of India. But in the present case, complainant has been cheated and defrauded by the officials of the bank firstly by charging loan installment of Rs.10,000/- per month instead of agreed loan installment of Rs.9906.6 per month and secondly by charging interest at the higher side i.e 9.65% p.a instead of agreed rate of interest @ 8.75% p.a.  By not refunding the excess amount charged from the complainant, the bank has committed deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, time barred and locus-standi etc. On merits, it has been stated that OP No.1 has charged interest as per rule and Regulation which is mentioned in the Para 3 of the Arrangement letter that The Borrower/co-Borrower shall be deemed to have notice of changes in the rate of interest whenever the changes in the MCLR (Marginal cost of Funds Based lending Rate) are displayed/notified at/by the Bank/Published in the news papers/in the website of the bank/made through entry of the interest charged in the passbook/statement of account sent to the borrower/co-borrower etc. and you are liable to pay such revised rate of interest. The Bank has option to reduce or increase the EMI OR extend the amount and overdue period. On 05.08.2017, when first installment was credited in his loan amount then complainant neither raised any objection nor made any inquiry because all installments were credited in his loan amount with his permission. Op No.1 has taken installment from the complainant and has charged rate of interest as per rules and regulations of the bank and Arrangement letter.   Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.  On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Naresh Kumar, Manager of the OPs Bank-State Bank of India, Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt. and Shri Ved Parkash, Manager State Bank of India, RACPC, Ambala City as Annexure OP-1/A and OP1/AA respectively alongwith documents as Annexure OP-1, OP1/A to OP4/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that despite the terms of the arrangement letter (Annexure OP-1) stipulating a fixed interest rate of 8.75% and monthly installments of Rs.9,906.60, on the car loan amount of Rs.4 lacs, the OPs  have been receiving excess amounts from the complainant, specifically Rs.10,000/- per month against Rs.9906.60 and charged interest rates between 8.75% and 9.50% against fixed rate of interest of 8.75% as agreed between the parties. Complainant is entitled to refund of the excess amounts paid by him.  
7.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs submitted that whatever amount was charged qua interest and monthly installment was strictly as per terms and conditions of the agreement and also the standing instructions of the complainant. He further submitted that no protest was ever raised by the complainant at the time of deduction of Rs.10,000/- per month and also interest rate between 8.75 % p.a to 9.50% per annum. He further submitted that the documents placed on record by the complainant are not reliable and on the other hand, in the documents OP-1/A to OP-2/A and OP-4/A placed on record by the OPs, it is clearly evident that floating rate of interest was agreed to be paid by the complainant against the said loan account.
8.           First coming to the objection taken by the OPs that this complaint is time barred, it may be stated here that because the last installment of Rs.10,000/- against Rs.9906.60 stood deducted by the OPs on 05.06.2021, as is evident from statement of account (Annexure C-2) for the period from 26.07.2017 to 06.05.2022, which has been disputed by the complainant, as such, this complaint having been filed on 22.07.2022 is well within limitation.
9.           Now coming to the merits of this case, it may be stated here that this matter pertains to a dispute arising out of the loan agreement entered into between the Complainant and the OPs and the issue arises for consideration is as to whether. OPs have violated the terms of the loan agreement by deducting the amount of Rs.10,000/-, per month instead of Rs.9906.60 and by charging interest rate higher than 8.75%.  
10.           The plea of the complainant is that as per the loan agreement, the interest rate was agreed to be fixed at 8.75% per annum, and the monthly installment was set at Rs.9,906.60. To corroborate this fact the complainant has placed on record loan agreement, Annexure C-1. It is further pleaded that the OPs have deducted monthly installment of Rs.10,000/-, instead of Rs.9,906.60 and also charged rate of interest between 8.75% and 9.50%, in contradiction to the loan agreement.   On the contrary, the plea of the OPs is that the complainant took loan on the floating rate of interest and monthly installment was charged strictly as per terms and conditions of the agreement. In support of this version, the OPs have placed on record the loan agreement Annexure OP1/A.
11.           Upon careful comparison of the documents Annexure C-1 and Annexure OP1/A, it is clearly evident that both documents mention the fixed and floating rates of interest. However, a significant discrepancy arises when we examine the application number: while the application number is explicitly stated in Annexure C-1, it is absent in Annexure OP1/A.
12.           This omission application number is noteworthy because the application number serves as a critical identifier for any transaction or agreement related to the financial terms. Its presence in one document (Annexure C-1) and absence in the other (Annexure OP1/A) introduces a degree of uncertainty. In the interest of fairness, it is essential to give weight to the document that provides the complete information—the Annexure C-1, which clearly includes the application number, ensuring its authenticity and validity. It is well-established in legal principles that, where there is ambiguity or conflict between two documents or interpretations, the interpretation that favors the consumer should prevail.
13.           In this case, since Annexure C-1 is more comprehensive and includes critical details such as the application number, it should be considered as the more reliable and authenticatic document. The absence of the application number in Annexure OP1/A further supports the argument that Annexure C-1 should take precedence in the interpretation of the terms related to the loan agreement.
14.           It is well-established in contract law that parties are bound by the terms and conditions set forth in the agreement. As stated above, in this case, the loan agreement (Annexure C-1) clearly stipulates the fixed interest rate of 8.75% and a monthly installment of Rs. 9,906.60. The OPs, by charging an interest rate ranging from 8.75% to 9.50% against 8.75% and receiving Rs. 10,000/- per month against Rs. 9,906.60, has breached the explicit terms of the agreement. The OPs ’s action of overcharging the complainant by demanding excess payments and charging interest rates beyond the agreed 8.75% is a clear instance of deficiency in service.
15.           Since, OPs have collected excess amounts beyond what was stipulated in the agreement, therefore complainant is entitled to a refund of the difference between the actual payments made (Rs.10,000/- per month) and the agreed-upon installment (Rs.9,906.60 per month), along with any excess interest charged beyond the fixed rate of 8.75%.
16.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs, in the following manner:-  
    1. To refund the excess amount of Rs.93.40 per month, which has been paid over and above the agreed installment of Rs.9,906.60, for the period from 26.07.2017 to 06.05.2022, along with any excess interest charged above the agreed rate of 8.75%.
    2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
    3. To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.  

                    The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OPs shall pay interest @ 8% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of passing of this order, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

  Announced:- 19.12.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President