SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
Complainant has filed this complaint U/s 35 of consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking to get an order directing opposite parties to cure the mistake and meet the expenses incurred to this complainant in the housing loan and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.
The case of the complainant in brief as mentioned in the compliant, is that the complainant availed a housing loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the OP dated 02/11/2012 with an interest rate 9.5% for a period of 15 years. At the time of sanctioning the loan the OP/manager inform the complainant that the repayment will be started after one year and the installment amount is fixed Rs.5,500/- per month. Complainant claimed that in almost all the installments he had paid excess amount up to November 2020 and there was no due. Complainant stated that till November 2020, he paid a total amount of Rs.3,98,351/- to OP. But from the account statement of OP, the outstanding principle amount is Rs.4,98,102/-. Complainant further submitted that though he paid Rs.3,98 351/- in loan of Rs.5,00,000/- there is no deduction from the principle amount, so there is a mistake from the side of OP and it has to be corrected by OP. Hence the complaint.
The OP entered appearance OP filed version and stated that the applicant was sanctioned an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as housing loan from them, Irikkur branch for construction of a house in RS No 283/2at Irikkur village on 05/11/2012. The loan sanctioned with the repayment holiday/moratorium period of 12 months. During the repayment holiday the customer need not pay the loan installments provided that the interest will be charged monthly proportionately, the amount availed. It is the discretion of the customer to pay the interest during repayment holiday, if not; the accumulated interest will be charged and capitalized at the end of moratorium. The term capitalization refers compounding of interest to the principal amount available, hence new equated monthly payment will be calculated from there. OP further submitted that as per the loan sanction letter the EMI is calculated as if the customer paid the interest during moratorium period. But in this case complainant has not paid the moratorium interest. OP pleaded that Ext. B1 account statement clearly shows that the complainant started the repayment only after 18 months of date of loan ie from 20/02/2014. After that he has paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- on 15/12/2014, instead to pay merely 95,258/-/- as interest along with principal repayments. So the account is about to classify as NPA from wef 05/05/2014 by considering the oral permission, the account rescheduled, hence regular repayment started wef 10/03/2015. According to OP the principal account balance available at that time is Rs.5,87,662/- and EMI is calculated on the basis of the revised principle for the left out period of 163 months OP submitted that the further monthly repayment also is not up to date, the borrower, has made default, further penalty interest to the account for further period. The account repayment where accounted properly and from 01/04/2020 govt. has extended moratorium for loan repayment due to Covid Pandemic issues. During these periods complainant did not repaid the monthly installments and chosen for Moratorium as per bank policy, there 6 months moratorium period interest is also accumulated to principal amount as detailed above. It is further submitted that the loan interest and other charges charged to the loan account is within bank policy and the concern is raised due to non-repayment of the loan as per the sanction communicated to the borrower. OP submitted that there is no deficiency of service on their part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
At the evidence stage complainant has filed his chief–affidavit. He has been examined as Pw1 and the document submitted by OP No.1 as per the petition of complainant ie statement of account is marked as Ext.A1. On the side of OP, manager of OP bank file his chief affidavit and the documents from OP’s side were marked as Ext.B1 and Ext.B2. Ext.B1 is the statement of account and Ext.B2 is the loan agreement.
After that learned counsel of complainant as well as OP filed written argument notes. As per sec.100 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, the present complaint is maintainable before the consumer commission.
Complainant’s allegation is that the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- taken by him from OP bank, having EMI fixed as Rs.5,500/- per month has been paid by him regularly. Complainant claimed that in almost all the installments he had paid excess amount up to November 2020 and there was no due. According to complainant till November 2020, he paid a total amount of Rs.3,98,351/- to OP. But from the account statement of OP, the outstanding principle amount is Rs.4,98,102/-. Complainant’s allegation is that though he paid Rs.3,98 351/- in loan of Rs.5,00,000/- , there is no deduction from the principle amount, so there is a mistake from the side of OP and it has to be corrected by OP.
On the other hand OP bank stated that there was neither any mistake nor any deficiency in service on the part OP bank in providing service and in the calculation. According to OP the bank is functioning under the provisions of Banking Act under the guide lines of RBI. OP admitted that complainant was given a housing loan of Rs.5,00,000/- on 05/11/2012. OP contended that the loan was sanctioned after executing loan agreement Ext.B2 between complainant and OP bank. The loan sanctioned with the repayment holiday moratorium period of 12 months. During the repayment holiday the customer need not pay the loan installments, provided that the interest will be charged monthly proportionately, the amount availed. It is the discretion of the customer to pay the interest during repayment holiday, if not; the accumulated interest will be charged and capitalized at the end of moratorium. The term capitalization refers compounding of interest to the principal amount available, hence new equated monthly payment will be calculated from there. OP further submitted that as per the loan sanction letter, the EMI is calculated as if the customer paid the interest during moratorium period. But in this case complainant has not paid the moratorium interest. OP pleaded that Ext. B1 account statement clearly shows that the complainant started the repayment only after 18 months of date of loan ie from 20/02/2014. After that he has paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- on 15/12/2014, instead to pay merely 95,258/-/- as interest along with principal repayments. So the account is about to classify as NPA from wef 05/05/2014 by considering the oral permission, the account rescheduled, hence regular repayment started w.e.f 10/03/2015. According to OP the principal account balance available at that time is Rs.5,87,662/- and EMI is calculated on the basis of the revised principle for the left out period of 163 months OP submitted that the further repayment also is not up to date, the borrower, has made default, further penalty interest to the account for further period.
Complainant alleged that OP bank has made account as NPA and rescheduled the EMI without his knowledge and consent. Further the calculation made by OP bank is not correct.
The question to be decided is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP bank in taking action to re-schedule the loan repayment and made the loan account as NPA for non-payment of installment, without the written consent of the complainant?
Here the complainant does not have a case that the OP bank has not paid the entire housing loan amount to him. According to complainant, OP has given the last installment of loan even in the period the loan repayment became due. There is no doubt that the OP bank is providing services to its customer as per the guideline of RBI. Complainant does not have a case that OP bank has violated the RBI Instructions in calculating the interest and EMI during the moratorium period. Complainant has not established his case by submitting circular or any authenticated document issued by RBI during the Covid period in calculating the mode of EMI.
Here the complainant, after availing the loan of Rs.5,00,000/- constructed his home. He executed loan agreement in favour of the bank (Ext.B2). As per the terms and condition of the loan agreement, the complainant was to repay the loan in 180 EMI and the 1st of such installments shall be paid on or before 02/12/2013. On perusal of Ext.A1 statement of Account, it is revealed that the complainant failed to repay the installments promptly.
OP submitted that the repayment installments were re-scheduled due to non-payment of EMI regularly and there is no deficiency in service on their part. OP against whom, the complainant has made serious allegations in the complaint. But no document comes forth from the side of complainant to substantiate those allegation. There is also no material before us to rebut the contentions of OP. Complainant could have submitted repayment receipts to prove his allegations. On a perusal of Ext.B2 agreement, the condition is to repay the 1st EMI on or before 02/12/2013. But Ext.B1(A1) reveals that the complainant has repaid Rs.842/- on 06/11/2012, Rs., Rs.10,000/- on 20/02/2014, Rs.2967/- on 23/07/2014 and Rs.20,000/- on 15/12/2014, ie he was irregular in repayment of the loan amount. Hence from the available material in evidence, there is no truthfulness of the factual aspects.
So there is no material before us to come to conclusion that opposite party bank was deficient in providing baking service to the complainant and there is no justification for directing them to cure the mistake and meet the expenses incurred to the complainant with compensation.
For the forgoing discussions, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to substantiate his case. Hence the same is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exts
A1-Certified copy of account statement
B1-Statement of account(A1)
B2-Loan agreement
Pw1-Complainant
Dw1-Witness of OP
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
