Date of Complaint :22/04/2014

                                  Date of Disposal :12/03/2015

IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI

  SMT. K.D. PARVATHY, MEMBER

O R D E R

1. The complaint has filed the complaint u/sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opponent  alleging deficiency of service.

2. The complainant’s case in brief are that he had applied for housing loan bearing loan No.125808350250002 from the opponent in the month of February 14^th 2006 for Rs.8 lakhs for normal interest from the date of loan.  The complainant submits that on 28/05/2006 he had paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the opponent and further had paid the loan amount periodically.  The complainant submits that he applied for the statement of accounts to the opponent and got it which showed a sum balance of Rs.8,11,408/- due from the complainant as on 27/01/2014 even after the complainant  paid Rs.4,32,952/- to the opponent.  The complainant submits that he is ready to pay said amount of Rs.8,11,408/- to the opponent.  So that the loan account would close and the complainant would obtain no due certificate.

3. The complainant submits that the opponent refused to receive the said amount mentioned in the statement of accounts of Rs.8,11,408/- but the opponent insisted that the complainant should pay the commercial rate of interest.  The complainant submits that he is not ready to pay the commercial rate of interest for the borrowed money.  The complainant submits that on 08/02/2014 the opponent issued a notice to him to pay the commercial rate of interest.  The complainant submits that if the loan is calculated on the basis of commercial rate of interest, he will be put into great hardship and untold misery and the attitude of the opponent shows deficiency in service and to extract more money from the complainant. 

4. The opponent has opposed the complainant by filing the version dated 19/06/2014.  The opponent has admitted the fact that the complainant had applied for site cum housing loan for an amount of Rs.8 lakhs.  The opponent submits that the complainant had agreed to construct a house on the said site within three years from the date of purchase, failing which interest would be charged at commercial rate.  The opponent states that said condition is mentioned in the sanction letter and the complainant had also executed a letter of undertaking dated 17/02/2006 wherein the complainant had agreed to construct a house within three years from the date of purchase and had authorized the opponent, that the opponent may charge interest on the said loan at commercial rate from the date of sanction. 

5. The opponent states that since the complainant has not constructed a house on the site so purchased as per the sanction terms and the complainant’s letter of undertaking dated 17/02/2006, the complainant is liable to pay interest at the commercial rate on the said loan account and hence the opponent has demanded the balance calculating interest as agreed to between the complainant and the opponent.  The opponent states that the complainant was requesting the opponent to charge concessional rate of interest, since the complainant had not constructed a house on the site purchased out of the loan sanctioned by the opponent.  The opponent states that by the letter dated 03/02/2014 the opponent had informed the complainant that the complainant’s request for charging confessional rate of interest had been declined and opponent had requested the complainant to pay the outstanding amount at commercial rate of interest and the letter was duly received by the complainant.  The opponent states that the complainant is due to the opponent for a sum of Rs.18,55,454/- till 31/05/2014 in respect of the above said loan account.  The opponent hence states that there is no deficiency in service to the complainant.  The opponent states that the complainant is trying to curtail the jurisdiction of the competent civil court, to appraise and interpret the terms and conditions of the contract entered in to between the parties and hence liable to be dismissed.
6. The following points arise for consideration;

1. Whether the complainant has shown the deficiency of service by the opponent?

2. To what order the parties are entitled ?

7. Findings on the above points are as follows;

         Point No.1 :- Negative

         Point No.2 :- As per order

R E A S O N S

8. Point No.1 :- It is an admitted fact that the complainant had applied for site purchase cum housing loan with the opponent and had availed the said facility to an extent of Rs.8 lakhs.

The complainant had paid Rs.4,32,952/- as per the statement of accounts of the opponent.  The opponent stated that the complainant had applied for site purchase cum housing loan with the opponent and had availed the said facility to an extent of Rs.8 lakhs agreeing to construct on the site purchased a house within 3 years from the date of purchase, failing which interest would be charged at commercial rate and the complainant had executed a letter of undertaking dated 17/02/2006 and the said terms was also mentioned in the sanction letter.  The complainant in his affidavit has mentioned that there is no terms and conditions in the sanction communication that the complainant should construct the house in the allotted site within 3 years and the letter of undertaking dated 17/02/2006 was a created document by the opponent. 

9. On perusal of the sanction communication document which filed is Ex.D1 by the opponent, it is very clearly mentioned in the 25^th para that the opponent was correct in stating that the complainant had knowledge of the terms and condition while availing the loan.

Ex.D2 which is the undertaking/ authorization letter of the complainant also clearly shows the complainant had undertaken to construct the house within 3 years from the date of purchase otherwise the opponent may charge commercial rate from the date of sanction.  The complainant has not proved that the said letter of undertaking has been concocted or created by opponent. 

10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the complainant has to prove any deficiency of service on the part of the opponent.  Hence, the complainant is not entitled for the relief sought for by him.  Accordingly we answered point no.1 in Negative.

11. Point No.2:- In view of the findings on point no.1 above we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint filed on 22/04/2014 by Sri.M.P. Medappa against the Manager, Vijaya Bank, Igoor Branch, Madapura, Somwarpet Taluk is hereby dismissed.

2.No order as to cost. 

3.Issue certified copies of this order at free of cost to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this  12^th day of March 2015)