Haryana

StateCommission

A/820/2018

NATHUNI JHA AND OTHERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

VINOD KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

R.S.BADHRAN

24 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

  Date of Instituion:29.06.2018

                Date of final hearing:24.04.2023

                                                 Date of pronouncement:24.04.2023

 

 

FIRST APPEAL No.820 of 2018

 

 

1.      Nathuni Jha, Chief Manager, SBI, RASME City, Credit Centre,         1^st Floor, GT Road, Panipat.

2.      Sh. Ravinder Raina, Assistant General Manager, RASME City,        Credit Centre, 1^st Floor, GT Road, Panipat.

3.      Deputy General Manager, SBI Zonal Office, Haryana, Sector-5,       Panchkula.  

 

                                                                                            .….Appellants

Versus

 

 

Vinod Kumar son of Sh. Ranjit Singh  resident of Quarter No.C-2452 Panipat Refinery, New Towhship, Panipat.

…..Respondent

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President. 

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Ravi Kant, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Mr. Kaushal Kalyan, Advocate for the respondent.

                  

O R D E R

 

Per Manjula, Member:

 

                    The brief facts giving rise for disposal of the present case are that the complainant had availed a loan of an amount of Rs.16,25,000/- on 05.12.2010 for purchasing a plot bearing No.1243, Sector-18, HUDA, Panipat under the SBI Reality Scheme. It is further submitted that after the sanction of the said loan, the complainant was paying EMI regularly without any default and paid approximately Rs.11,99,511/- to the Ops. It is also submitted that the Ops issued a letter dated 18.07.2016 to the complainant imposing higher rate of interest on account number 31501741814 of the complainant and imposed a penalty of Rs.2,67,801/- on account of not raising construction on the aforesaid plot (for which the loan was availed) within two years of the disbursement of the loan as per the terms and conditions of grant of the aforesaid loan. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the officers of the bank who told the complainant that he had given an undertaking to raise the construction on the said plot within a period of two years, failing which the bank was entitled to charge higher rate of interest. However, the OP bank forgot to raise the rate of interest after two years of the sanction of the loan. It has been further submitted that the Ops themselves failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and did not increase the rate of interest in the years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 & 2015 despite repayment of the said loan being on Auto Debit System. Thus, the demand of Rs.2,67,801/- raised by the Ops from the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties by filing its reply before the District Commission raising preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable as the same was barred by limitation and the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint etc. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant had availed loan under the scheme SBI Realty for purchase of plot bearing No.1243 Sector -18, situated at HUDA, Panipat and Shri Ranjeet Singh son of Kura Ram and Shri Rajesh Kumar son of Shri Ranjeet Singh had been admitted as third party guarantee. It is further submitted that as per the said scheme, the construction over the purchased plot was to be completed within two years of the execution of the loan document. In case, construction of the house was not completed within the stipulated time, the higher rate of interest was to be charged after expiry of the stipulated period. The complainant has not commenced/completed the construction over the said plot under the scheme within the stipulated time and thus, has failed to comply with the above stated condition of loan. The complainant had also performed an undertaking to the effect that “This has reference to my/our application dated 16.11.2010 of a loan of Rs.16,65,000/-  for purchase of plot and for construction of dwelling unit thereupon. I will raise construction within a period of two years, failing which the bank will be free to charge a higher rate of interest”. Hence, the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,67,801/- on account of differential rate of interest to the OP. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on its part and requested for dismissal of the complaint.  

3.      The District Commission, Panipat after taking into consideration the material available on record accepted the complaint vide order dated 25.04.2018, whereby it held :

          “direct the Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.2,67,801/- with immediate effect. However, the Ops shall be at liberty to impose penalty interest after 18.07.2016. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.6600/- for the mental harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses. OP shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”

 

4.      Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, Panipat, the Opposite parties-appellants have preferred this appeal before the State Commission.

5.      The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Ravi Kant, counsel for the appellants and by Mr. Kaushal Kalyan, counsel for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire appeal has been properly perused and the record examined.            

6.       It is not disputed that the complainant had availed loan from the Ops for purchasing of plot bearing No.1243, Sector 18, HUDA, Panipat.  The complainant has availed loan of Rs.16,25,000/- from the Ops on 05.12.2010. The Ops vide letter dated 18.07.2016 imposed penalty interest of Rs.2,67,801/- on complainant for not raising construction over the plot for which loan had been sanctioned. As per the terms and conditions of loan agreement, it was incumbent upon complainant to raise construction over the said plot within two years from the date of sanction of loan, failing which, the complainant was liable to pay penal interest which comes to Rs.2,67,801/-. The complainant has stated that period of two years lapsed  on 04.12.2012 whereas the Ops have imposed the penalty interest in the year 2016. The Ops never issued any letter immediately after expiry of two years term which comes to 04.12.2012. Besides this, copy of account statement pertaining to the said loan account i.e. Ex.C-11 shows that the complainant was regularly paying the installments with regard to the loan availed by him. On the other hand, the Ops have failed to place on record any document/evidence which could prove their genuineness with regard to issuing of demand letter in the year 2012, which they subsequently issued in the year 2016 (18.07.2016) for not raising the construction on the said plot within the stipulated period. The lapse has been on the part of the Ops. They have been negligent in performing their duty with regard to the management of the said loan. Thus, imposing a penalty of Rs.2,67,801/- by the Ops on complainant is held to be unjustified and not tenable in the eyes of law. In case the OPS had issued the letter regarding imposing higher rate of interest immediately after expiry of two years then the complainant would have taken the remedial measures and the amount of penal interest would have been much less. Hence, deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is clearly proved.

7.      The learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. The State Commission finds no reason or ground to interfere with the order of learned District Commission. Hence, the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

8.      Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid Order.

9.      A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

10.    File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this order.

 

                                                                                      (T.P.S. Mann)

                                                                                       President

 

 

 

                                                                                                            (Manjula)

                                                                                        Member

 

Pronounced On: 24.04.2023                                                                   

 

M.S.