Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/41/2014

Sd.Rabbani Abdal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

15 Oct 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing     :04-06-2014

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:15-10-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Thursday, this the  15^th  day of  October, 2015

 

PRESENT: Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L.,LL.M.,President(FAC) & Member                             

                   Sri N.S. Kumara Swamy, B.Sc.,LL.B., Member.

 

C.C.No.41/2014

Sd.Rabbani Abdal,

S/o.Sd.Ahmed Abdal,

D.No.7-1-792, Isukadonka,

Aged 32 years, Ranganayakulapet,

Nellore-524 001,

S.P.S.R.Nellore District (A.P.India).                                                         ..… Complainant          

 

                                                                           Vs.

The Branch Manager,

S.B.I. (969) Branch,

Venkatagiri,

S.P.S.R.Nellore District.                                                                         …..Opposite Party

                                                        .        

            This complaint coming on 13-10-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri C.P. Suresh, advocate for the complainant and                                                                  Sri M.V.S. Girija Kumar,    advocate for the opposite party  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

(ORDER BY  Sri N.S. KUMARA SWAMY, MEMBER)

 

            The brief averments of the complainant are that the complainant took a loan of Rs.2,26,000/- vide L.No.31056313214 on agreement. The said loan sanctioned at the rate of interest  at 12% p.a. and to repay the same in 48 equal monthly instalments.  The amount of Rs.2,26,000/-  +    Rs.1,08,480/-  (instalments) aggregating Rs.3,34,480/-  have to pay by the complainant as  specified in the above instalments.  So far, the bank deducted Rs.3,35,057/- and still the opposite party’s are planning to continue the deductions  through his account No.30941373424.  The opposite party’s collected excess  amount  and when the complainant approached for refund  of  excess amount, they were not paying interest to settle the account and instructed him to follow the  Banker’s statement given to him.   He further alleged that an amount of Rs.3,020/-  and also Rs.1,000/- were debited through  A.T.M. account on respective dates 21-02-2010 and       11-03-2010 without payment.  Eventhough  he complained to the Branch Manager, they replied simply to forget.  Further alleged that the Banker’s collected floating interest  which was  objectionable and debited amount of Rs.14,000/- on 09-10-2010 which was not  received back.  Further, the Banker’s collected Rs.2,288/- towards collection of process charges apart from stamp charges were objectionable. As such the bankers deducted excess amount of R.18,754/- more for which amount details were submitted through his self statement  prepared by him.  Further alleged that a Banker’s creating troubles by making attacks.   He complained to III Town P.S. / NLR on 30-04-2014 for  protection  and compensation.  Since, they  collected  excess payment of Rs.18,754/-  and refused to pay the same, there is  deficiency in service on the part of opposite party  and hence the complainant seeking relief as prayed  for in the complaint.

 

            2.         On the other hand, the opposite party resisted the complaint  denied all the allegations  except that of  admitting that he took a loan from the opposite party bank at the floating rate of interest.  The opposite party bank contended that the  petitioner availed loan of Rs.2,28,767/- (Loan of Rs.2,26,000/-  +  SBI  life insurance 2767 total 2,28,767 from this bank SBI / Venkatagiri / NLR district through his account No.31056313214, dated 12-02-2010 on loan after execution of agreement letter of  agreement as on even the said date  with floating  rate of interest of 12.75% p.a. in 48 E.M.I. of Rs.6,181/- commencing from March, 2010 which was  started from June, 2010 only.   Hence, the deductions made by the bank were regular as pr terms and conditions of R.B.I.  It is   further submitted that this case was referred to the “Banking Ombudsman”, R.B.I., Saifabad, Hyderabad and the  Ombudsman after scrutinizing all the documents closed the case with a finding that no deficiency  of service on the part of Bank and the loan account of the complainant closed on 01-07-2014.  The complaint filed by the complainant was with malafide intention to cause trouble to the Bank  and to get wrongful gain.  Hence as there is no  bonafides  and element of truth in the complaint, the complaint may be dismissed.

 

3.         The grievance of the complainant as revealed from the contents of the complaint , sworn affidavit and written arguments is that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.2,26,000/- from the opposite party bank as on 12-2-2010. The said loan amount together with interest of Rs.1,08,480/- making in all Rs.3,34,480/- is repayable in                     48 installments at Rs.6,181/- and the opposite party recovered from the complainant more than the amount of installments and made unauthorized recoveries such as processing charges of Rs.2,288/-, service charges etc. According to the complainant the opposite parties recovered excess amount of Rs.18,754/- and on account of the said acts of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered mental agony and hence filed this complaint for direction to the opposite parties to pay the complainant the above said amount recovered in excess, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and suffering , and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the complainant.

 

            4.         The opposite parties repudiated the claim contained in the complaint contending that the recoveries affected from the salary of the complainant were all done within the rules and regulations and documents executed by the complainant at the time of availing the loan. The interest was charged at the revised rates as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank Of India issued from time to time. All the deductions made from the complainant by the bank are regular. Therefore, the several allegations made in the complaint are all false, frivolous and the complaint is filed with malafide intention to cause trouble to the bank and to have wrongful gain.

 

            5.         This forum considered that the rival claims, the documents, sworn affidavits and the written arguments.

 

6.         Now the point for determination is:

 

1. Whether there was deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
2. To what relief?

 

             7.        In order to substantiate  the complainant averments, complainant filed evidence on affidavit  as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A7.  On the other hand,   the opposite party filed chief affidavit as R.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 and B10.

 

            8.         POINT No.1:  Admitted facts are that the complainant availed a personal loan of Rs.2,28,767/- from the opposite party bank .The said loan amount together with interest was agreed to be repaid in 48 equal monthly installments at Rs.6,181/-. The rate of interest prevailing at the time of sanction of loan was Rs.12.75% .From the several documents executed by the complainant, it is clear that the complainant agreed to pay interest at floating rates that is to be agreed to pay interest revised from time to time. The complainant in the agreement of loan executed by him clearly agreed to pay interest at enhanced rate. Therefore , the Opposite parties were entitled to recover the loan together with interest enhanced from time to time. According to the opposite parties, the interest was enhanced from time to time and it was enhanced to 14.75%. In view of the contentions raised by the opposite parties and the documents executed by the complainant the claim of the complainant that he agreed for repayment of loan amount at Rs 12% per annum cannot be accepted .Having been a party to the agreement of loan and terms and conditions of loan, the complainant was bound to repay the loan amount together with interest at 14.75% per annum .On account of revision of rate of interest from time to time, there would be increase in the monthly EMI payable by the complainant .Consequently there was increase of monthly EMI from Rs.6,181/- originally fixed and the EMI revised was subject to the change in rate of interest and EMI automatically should be increased by change of rates, taxes, charges etc. There was no need necessarily for opposite parties to give prior notice as on the revision of rates on interest and consequent revised EMI to the complainant. In view of the terms and conditions of the agreement admittedly extended by the complainant and at the time of entering into loan transactions, the complainant was bound by the law to pay the revised EMI . Consequently, the alleged excess recovery of Rs.18,754/- represents the revised rate of interest charges etc. Therefore , it cannot be said that the opposite parties recovered any amount excess of the EMI payable by the complainant .

 

            9.         The complainant complains that he did not drawn amount of Rs 3,020/- but as per the statement of account , it was debited in the account of the complainant. The amount of Rs.3,020/- was said to have been debited as drawn through the ATM as on                       21-02-2010.The complainant is an educated person and is employed as a Second Grade Teacher .If really the complainant has not drawn the said amount on 21-02-2010 through ATM, and said amount was wrongly debited , he should have immediately complained by writing. There was no complaint made in this regard till 4-6-2014. It was only on 4-6-2014 in the complaint, it is alleged that there was wrong debit of Rs.3,020 alleged to have been drawn through ATM on 21-2-2010  and also about non-drawal of amount of Rs.1,000/- through A.T.M. on 11-03-2010.  Even , in the letter dated 29-7-2013 ,there is no mention about the same. The circumstances could go to show that the complainant came forward with false and untenable versions only for the purpose of filing this false complaint.

 

            10.       Therefore, the self serving statement of the complainant as Ex.A1 does not prepared the correct picture. The bank is entitled to service charges as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank Of India. It cannot be said that the recovery of service charges as unauthorized.

 

            11.       The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of standing instructions and irrevocable letter of authority marked as ex B7 and B8 executed by the complainant at the time of sanction of loan. The complainant went to the extent of making several allegations against SBI, a reputed bank throughout India and in other countries. The bank, while sanctioning the loan obtain required documents from the loanees and in case of default committed by the loanee , they take legal steps for recovery of the amount . They need not step down to the level of pressing into service - to force the loanees to repay the loan amounts as alleged by the complainant .The complainant solely with a view to enforce the opposite parties to come to his tunes made blatent false statements. The complainant for reasons best known to him has not stated as to what happened to the complaint alleged to have been given by the complainant to III Town police station. A copy of the said complaint has not been filed. A doubt is created in the mind of the Forum as to whether infact a complaint was given. The very fact that police did not take any action on the alleged complaint goes to show the falsify of the allegations levelled  against the opposite parties.

            12.       The present complaint is clearly an abuse of process of Law. The complainant infact approached the banking ombudsman Reserve Bank Of India, Saifabad, Hyderabad, with a complaint on similar lines. The ombudsman closed the said complaint on 01-07-2014 with a finding that no deficiency of service is made out.The decision of the ombudsman in this regard is final .The complainant conveniently suppressed the said fact and came forward with the present complaint on similar facts. Therefore, the present compliant is an abuse of process of law. From Ex.B10 , it is very clear that the loan account of the complainant was closed on 01-07-2014.

            13.       This forum, therefore is of the clear opinion that several versions stated in the complaint are all false, coined and concocted for the purpose of filing the complaint with false claim. There is no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant .Thus , the point is held against the complainant. Accordingly, point 1 is answered .

            14.       POINT No.2:  In the result., the complaint is dismissed, but without costs in the circumstances of the case.

Typed to the dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  15^th  day of  October, 2015.

 

 

                   Sd/-                                                                                             Sd/-

           MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

           

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -

30-06-2015

Sri Sd. Rabbani, S/o.Ahemad Abdal, Nellore (Evidence Affidavit filed)

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party

 

R.W.1  -

04-12-2014

Sri B.S.K. Mohana Sarma, S/o.B.L.Narasimha Rao,  Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Venkatagiri (Chief affidavit filed)

 

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A1  -	-	Accounts Statement prepared by the complainant.
Ex.A2  -	25-02-2014	Photocopy of Statement of Account issued by State Bank of India, Venkatagiri, Nellore District in favour of complainant pages from 1 to 6
Ex.A3  -	-	Photocopy of pass book A/c.No.30941373424 in favour of complainant.
Ex.A4  -	29-07-2013	Photocopy of  letter from complainant to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Gudur.
Ex.A5  -	09-07-2013	Photocopy of proceedings   in Rc.No.6178/B3/2013 from District Educational officer, SPSR Nellore District.
Ex.A6  -	13-05-2014	Letter from complainant to the Branch Manager, SBI, Venkatagiri, SPSR Nellore District.
Ex.A7  -	17-05-2014	Photocopy of letter from opposite party to the complainant.

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY

 

Ex.B1  -	12-02-2010	Xpress Credit Loan Scheme details and application  in favour of complainant.
Ex.B2  -	-	Annexure-III, Personal Loan Agreement
Ex.B3  -	-	Annexure-IV, Deed of Guarantee.
Ex.B4  -	-	Arrangement Letter  from opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.B5  -	12-02-2010	D.P.Note Delivery Letter in favour of complainant.-
Ex.B6  -		Standing Instructions in favour of complainant issued by opposite party.
Ex.B7  -	-	Letter  (Annexure-Xpress Credit-IV) from opposite eparty to the complainant.
Ex.B8  -	-	Annexure-VI from opposite party  in favour of complainant..
Ex.B9  -	07-05-2014	Letter from opposite party pages 1 and 2.
Ex.B10  -	12-09-2014	Statement of Account in favour of complainant issued by the opposite party.

 

 

                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                       Id/-

                                                                                                         PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri C.P. Suresh, Advocate, 27-5-42, 19th Cross Road, Balaji Nagar, Nellore.
2.	Sri M.V.S. Girijakumar, Advocate, Venkatagiri Town, Nellore District.

 

Date when free copy was issued: