ORDER

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS.  PRESIDENT

1.      This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party (herein referred to as OP) under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for the deficiency in service in levying higher interest for the home loan the complainant had borrowed and for refund of the interest so levied and recovered from her, and also for refund of the penal interest debited and received from her account by the OP, and the amount sanctioned to her without obtaining the consent for the same, and Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for causing physical strain and mental agony and Rs.2,500/- being the legal notice charge and in all for the payment of Rs.4,79,979/-  and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that; complainant borrowed home loan of Rs.27,00,000/- agreeing to pay interest at 10.70% from the OP.  After executing all the loan, documents agreement and completing the formalities, a loan of sum of Rs.27,00,000/- was sanctioned under loan account No.3050983647 dated 21.10.2008 and the said amount was released in 8 installments as per the request and a total sum of Rs.27,00,000/- was disbursed to her from 21.10.2008 to 12.05.2010. She observed some violations in terms of the loan sanctioned. She also requested to refix the EMI’s.  Except for modification of rate of interest, no request of her was attended to by the OP.  On 06.03.2021 she issued a notice calling upon the OP to rectify the violation committed failing which she would take legal action.

3.      It is contended that, the loan was sanctioned under the floating rate of interest scheme wherein the rate of interest was 10.65% with an EMI of Rs.30,985/- per month and the amount to be paid in 168 EMI’s.  At the time of sanction of the loan the rate of interest at 10.65% and thereafter it got reduced to 8.60% and later got increased to 11.50%.  Since she is lady she is entitle to 0.05% interest concession under the scheme for sanctioning the loan to the women.  It is found that, as on 31.12.2020, OP has charged interest of Rs.1,14,919/- and recovered the same which is to be refunded.  Further the EMI is due on 10^th of every month.  From the very beginning, she has been paying the said EMI’s without any default on the date fixed for payment. However from July 2018 onwards OP has collected Rs.751/- as penal charges by debiting the amount from her  account in every month. Further OP has collected service charges for SMS alerts from her account.  Further a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- was released on 07.07.2017 and Rs.25,000/- on 10.07.2017  and debited the same to her account, though she has not sought for the same and she cannot be made responsible for return of the same as there is no document supporting the payment of the said amount. Further without any request OP released a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- on 12.07.2021 by debiting the same  to her housing loan account. The act of OP has been grossly deficient in rendering the service and not best in the interest of consumer. She has been put to physical strain, mental agony and press and hence OP is liable to compensate the same by paying Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.2,500/- towards legal notice charges. Refund of Rs.751/- being the amount collected as per the penal interest collected over the period Rs.1,55,000/- being the excess amount debited from her account. Interest of Rs.56,809/- on the said amount and Rs.1,14,919/- being the excess interest collected and prayed the commission to allow the complaint.

4.      Upon the service of notice, OPs appeared before the commission and denied all the allegations made against it and in respect of charging excess interest over the agreed rate of interest, collecting penal interest of Rs.751/- and SMS charges and other service charges, and collecting additional EMI at the rate of Rs.46,500/- and Rs.34,500/- and not returning the 12 postdated cheques issued at the time of obtaining the loan, and also additional release of Rs.1,30,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.2,90,000/- to the complainant by debiting the same from her housing loan account. 

5.      It is further contended that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is filed only to harass the OPs and officials of the bank basing on false, frivolous, untenable grounds, which is liable to be dismissed.  It is also contended that there is no cause of action for the complainant to file the complaint.

6.      It is contended by OP that, the complainant approached OP for housing loan by making an application.  After scrutiny of the loan application, and along with other documents and after completing the formalities, the bank sanctioned Rs.27,00,000/-towards housing loan on floating rate of interest at 10.70% per annum and the amount to be paid in 168 EMI”s at the rate of Rs.30,985/-. There was no agreement between them that there shall be the concession of 0.05% in the interest rate against the interest rate of 10.70% on the ground that she is a women, as there was no scheme existing at that time.  They have not collected any excess interest from the complainant as alleged to the extent of Rs.1,14,919/-. 

7.      It is contended that, since the complainant withdraw Rs.1,30,000/- and Rs.25,000/- from her loan account at request, the installment of Rs.46,500/- was recovered to manage the EMI in respect of excess loan amount drawn and afterwards on 10.05.2019 the same was reduced to Rs.34,500/-.  It is further contended that the loan sanctioned to the complainant was under “SBI Max Gain Scheme”. Under the scheme, the amount sanctioned is a limit sanction similar to the one under cash credit facility.  The customer has a freedom to utilize the said facility as and when the customer requires, he/she can withdraw the amount from the housing loan account which is chargable with interest for the amount drawn from the account.  Hence the complainant knowing well, that she has obtained a loan under SBI Max gain scheme, withdrew Rs.1,30,000/-on 12.05.2017 and Rs.25,000/- on 10.07.2017 through cheque which amounts to overdraw of the limits to the extent of Rs.1,55,000/-.  As  requested, the complainant paid Rs.46,500/- during April 2019 and afterwards Rs.34,500/- as EMI and these facts were communicated to the complainant from time to time and hence she paid the same and never raised any objection as the act of OP was legal. The EMI was reset only to cover the amount of Rs.1,55,000/-  which the complainant withdrawn from the housing loan account to avoid any deficit. Again on 12.07.2021 a sum of  Rs.2,90,000/- was released by debiting from the loan account as the complainant wanted the said amount.   Hence there is no deficiency in service on its part and there is no illegality in charging the interest as agreed and there is no deficiency in service in whatsoever manner and that they have rendered proper service and prayed the commission to dismiss the complaint.

8.      In order to prove the case, both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1)  Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

9.      Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1 & 2 :       Partly in the affirmative.

                                       For the following.

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

10.    On perusing the complaint, version, documents, evidence filed by the both the parties, it becomes clear that, complainant borrowed Rs.27 lakhs as housing loan from the OP under “SBI Max Gain Home Loan” up to the limit of Rs.27,00,000/- subject to the condition laid in Ex P1, the agreement of loan, under which, the loan was sanctioned and disbursed. The repayment is mentioned as the amount to be paid in 168 EMI’s at the rate of Rs.30,985/- and further the said EMI was stipulated  on the ground that the interest during the moratorium period of 12 months is paid through 12 postdated cheques for Rs.23,995/- each.  When this is taken into consideration, it cannot be held that the loan was sanctioned with interest rebate of 0.05% to the women against the agreed rate of 10.70%. In view of this the calculation made by the complainant and the amount arrived by the complainant showing that an excess Rs.1,14,999/- has been charged extra and recovered from the OP cannot be accepted. 

11.    On perusing the accounts extract and the payment made by the complainant to OP, Op has charged penal interest commencing from 31.07.2018 to 30.04.2020 from Rs.2 to Rs.87 on various months totaling Rs.751/-. No explanation has been offered by the OP to show as to how it is entitle to levy penal interest that too when the complainant was regular in paying the amount of installment in every month. To that extent, we find deficiency in service against the OP. 

12.    Since this is a loan sanctioned and disbursed under “SBI Max gain scheme” and as stated by the OP, the borrower has a power to withdraw the amount parked in the loan account. When she withdrew the said amount from the said account through cheque, she is liable to pay, interest as well as the amount withdrawn by her. On perusing the accounts extract complainant has withdrawn Rs.1,30,000/- on 07.07.2017 and Rs.25,000/- on 10.10.2017 vide by issuing cheques. 

13.    Whereas another sum of Rs.2,90,000/- was withdrawn on 12.07.2021 and the same was remitted back on the next day itself.  The complainant cannot have Rs.1,55,000/- paid to her as gratis and cannot have any right to waive of the said amount on the ground that the same was paid to her without her consent and without executing any documents. The very fact of the complainant issuing cheques to withdraw the said amount clearly shows that she wanted to withdraw the said amount agreeing to the terms and conditions of the home loan repayment. When such being the case the claim of the complainant to have Rs.1,55,000/- and also claiming interest on the said amount is very much unbecoming on her part, illegal and further unrighteous and an attempt to gain wrongfully. 

14.    When she has opted for messages under SMS in respect of her transactions, as per the guidelines of the RBI, she has to pay the amount for the SMS for the services rendered by the bank and used by the complainant and hence we are of the opinion that the complaint filed is only to harass the OP. Except for the claim of refund of the penal interest levied and collected by the OP. Hence we answer PONT NO.1 AND 2 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and  pass the following:

ORDER

1.  The complaint is partly allowed and OP is hereby directed to refund or adjust to the loan account a sum of Rs.751/- which is collected/debited to the account of the complainant in the form of penal interest.  All the other prayers of the complainant is dismissed. Complainant to pay Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation to the OP.

2.  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 30^th day of MAY 2022)

MEMBER                  MEMBER                  PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the sanction letter of the loan

Ex P2: Copy of the letter written by complainant to the bank.

Ex. P3: Copy of the notice sent to OP bank.

Ex P4: Copy of the postal acknowledgement.

Ex P5: Copy of the housing loan statement.

Ex P6: Copy of the recalculation of interest and loan balance as per the release and payment

Ex P7: copy of the interest  worksheet excluding additional release.

Ex P8: Copy of the document showing change of rate of interest as per the RBI guidelines.

Ex P9: Copy of the letters through speed post.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sri Sanjeet Kumar, Chief Manager of OP bank.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1 to R3: Copy of the transactions dated 07.07.2017, 10.10.2017 and 12.07.2021.

MEMBER                   MEMBER                  PRESIDENT

RAK*