National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Nitin Vashisth And Gagan Vashisth vs Central Bank Of India, Branch Office, ... on 21 May, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
NEW
DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO.
2163 OF 2011
(From order dated 13.05.2011 in Appeal No. 952 of 2010
of State Consumer Disputes Redresdsal
Commission, Haryana, Panchkula)
Nitin Vashisth
and Gagan Vashisth,
both sons of Shri
Ram Nath Sharma,
R/o 484,
Sector-10, Gurgaon (Haryana)
..Complainants/Petitioners
Versus
1. Central Bank of India, Branch Office,
Gurudwara
Road, Gurgaon through its Chief Manager.
2. Central Bank of India, Regional Office,
Jawahar Market,
Model Town, Rohtak (Haryana) through
its Regional Manager.
3. Central Bank of India, Zonal Office,
Sector-17-B, Chandigarh,
through its Zonal Manager.
Opposite Parties/Respondents
BEFORE
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE
V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
HONBLE MRS. REKHA
GUPTA, MEMBER
For the
Petitioners : Mr. R. N. Sharma,
Auth. Representative
For the Respondents : Mr.
Neeraj Chaudhary, Advocate
Pronounced on: 21st May, 2013
ORDER
PER MR. JUSTICE V. B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Being aggrieved by order dated 13.5.2011, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, petitioners/complainants have filed the present petition.
2. Brief facts are that petitioners were sanctioned and disbursed a Housing Loan of Rs.46/- lacs by the respondents/opposite parties during the period 4.3.2008 to 31.12.2008 which was obtained by the petitioners for construction of their house i.e house no. 484 Sector-10, Gurgaon. The loan was repayable in 20 years in equated monthly installments at floating rate of interest and petitioners were repaying the installments regularly. Petitioners came to know that respondents were charging interest from other customers of house loan at lesser rate whereas from the petitioners, respondents were charging 10% per annum interest. Aggrieved against that action, petitioners approached the respondents and also approached State Bank of India, who had sanctioned and disbursed the loan @ 8% for the first year; 8.5% for second and third year and 9% from the fourth years onwards. Petitioners alleged that the difference in rate of interest in the loan accounts was quite substantial on a loan amount of Rs. 46/- lacs @ 8% p.a. which comes to Rs.92,000/- per year even on simple interest basis. Thus, the total interest payable on the loan of Rs. 46/- lacs @ 8% p.a. interest comes to Rs.46,34,297.60Pand while calculating interest @ 10% p.a. the total interest payable on the loan amount comes to Rs. 60,63,840/- and in this way the difference in the amount of interest comes to Rs.14,19,542/- with a difference of 2% in Rate of interest.
3. It is further alleged by the petitioners that housing loan accounts availed by them from respondent no.1 were fully repaid on 12.11.2009 and a No Dues Certificate dated 13.11.2009 was issued by respondent no. 1. The grievance of petitioners is that respondent no. 1 charged a sum of Rs.44,934/- @ 1% on outstanding amount of loan plus service tax of Rs.4,628/-; thus total amount of Rs.49,562/- being foreclosure charges was recovered from petitioners. Alleging it as deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, petitioners sought direction to the respondents to refund of Rs.49,562/-alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. from 13.11.2009 i.e. the date of recovery which has been charged on account of fore-closure till the date of payment and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.
4. Respondents in its written statement stated that petitioners after availing loan facility, got the loan transferred to State Bank of India with a motive to cause loss to the Bank. It is further stated that there are specific guidelines of the Bank that in case borrower repays the entire loan amount out of his own sources, then they there will be no prepayment charges. But if the loan is taken over by the other bank/financial institute, in that eventuality 1% of the outstanding amount will be charged from the borrower/loanee. Respondents have followed the guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India to the Central Bank of India. Respondent no.1 issued No Dues Certificate to the petitioners on 13.11.2009 as prior to that the loan advanced to the petitioners was taken over by the State Bank of India and since there was a specific guidelines of the Central Bank of India to charge 1% prepayment charges/foreclosure charges, in case the loan is taken over by the other bank/financial institute and for that reason a sum of Rs.49,562/- was charged form the petitioners. Denying any kind of deficiency in service on their part, respondents prayed for dismissed of the complaint.
5. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence brought on record, the District Forum, accepted the complaint and issued direction to the respondents to refund Rs.49,562/- alongwith interest @ 9% from 13.11.2009 till its actual realization; to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioners for harassment caused by the respondents and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of litigation.
6. Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, respondents filed appeal in the State Commission.
7. State Commission, vide its impugned order accepted the appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum and accordingly dismissed the complaint of the petitioners.
8. Now petitioners have filed present revision before this Commission.
9. We have heard Mr. R. N. Sharma, Authorized Representative of the petitioners and Mr. Neeraj Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondents and gone through the record.
10. The plea of petitioners is that they came to know from their friends, relative and media reports that respondent-Bank is now allowing the house loan at lesser rate of interest in the fresh loan account whereas, they are charging interest @ 10% p.a. from the petitioners. Further, there was no mention of foreclosure charges in terms and conditions while conveying sanction of loan to the petitioners and as such it amounts to unfair trade practice and complaint filed by the petitioners should be allowed.
11. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondents that petitioners are bound by terms and conditions of the agreement in respect of the loan. In the instant case, petitioners account was taken over by the State Bank of India and for that reason, respondents charged 1% extra as pre-payment/ foreclosure charges in view of the specific guidelines of the respondents-Bank.
12. State Commission, while allowing the appeal in the impugned order has observed;
Admittedly, the complainants availed the loan facility from the opposite parties in between 04.03.2008 to 31.12.2008. The circular relied upon by the opposite parties is dated 31.12.2008 which is fully applicable in the instant case. Thus, the amount which has been charged on account of foreclosure, cannot be termed as a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The District Consumer has failed to appreciate the controversy involved in the case and as such the impugned order cannot sustain.
In view of our aforesaid discussions, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
13. As per Circular of the respondents bank which find mentioned in the impugned order of the State Commission, the borrower has to pay 1% on outstanding amount if account is taken over by other bank/FIs.
14. Thus, petitioners are bound by terms and conditions of the agreement in respect to the loan. In our view the impugned order passed by the State Commission is based on correct analysis of the facts and appreciation of the evidence and the same cannot be termed as erroneous. Thus, we do not find any infirmity or ambiguity in the impugned order passed by the State Commission.
15. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.
..J (V.B. GUPTA) ( PRESIDING MEMBER) .
(REKHA GUPTA) MEMBER SSB/