National Consumer Disputes Redressal
1. G.Jayadevappa & Ors. vs 1. The Manager, Syndicate Bank & Ors. on 7 January, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3324 OF 2014 (Against the order dated 29.01.2014 in First Appeal No. 1137/2011 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore) WITH (IA NOS.5724 & 5725 OF 2014, For Stay & C/delay) 1. G.Jayadevappa S/o Late N.G.Shankarappa 2. Smt.G.J.Sudha W/o G.Jayadevappa 3. G.J.Girish S/o Jayadevappa 4. G.J.Harsha S/o G.Jayadevappa All are R/o Sri Pampa Jayadeva Complex Durgigudi, Main Road Shimoga, Karnataka State ..... Petitioners Versus 1. The Manager Syndicate Bank Durgigudi Branch, Shimoga, Karnataka 2. General Manager (Personnel & Legal) Head Office, Manipal Udupi Distt., Karnataka State 3. The Asstt. General Manager Syndicate Bank Public Information Officer Regional Office 5 L-A, Unkal Cross, Sai Nagar Road, Hubli-588021, Karnataka State ...... Respondents BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioners : Mr. Anand Sanjay M.Nuli, Advocate Pronounced on : 7th January, 2015 ORDER
REKHA GUPTA Revision Petition No. 3324 of 2014 has been filed by the petitioners/complainants against the order dated 29.1.2014, passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (short, State Commission) in First Appeal No.1137/2011.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the petitioners/complainants are that the petitioners intended to purchase a house and for the same the petitioner no.1 approached the respondent no.1/opposite party no.1 and expressed his intention of availing a housing loan. Respondent no.1 after verifying the documents etc. sanctioned a loan of Rs.20 lakhs in the name of petitioner no.2. The petitioner no.1 agreed for the same and the said loan was disbursed on 16.9.2010. The sale price of the house was Rs.62 lakhs. To meet the gap the petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 approached the respondent no.1 for gold loan.
The gold loan was for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs each. Respondent no.1 sanctioned the gold loan levying a processing charge of Rs.6,600 in the name of petitioners 2, 3 and 4. The amount of Rs.6,000/- taken as processing charges had not been shown in the passbook or statement of the petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4. The passbook only had entries of Rs.4,600, Rs.3,200/- and Rs.6,600/- of respective petitioners without specifying the reason of debit. The respondent no.1 had not given the gold loan cards only after issuing notice upon the respondents the said cards were issued. Respondent no.1 for sanctioning the gold loan had taken stamp paper of Rs.2,000/- from the petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 and stamp paper of Rs.2,000/- from petitioner no.1 for housing loan. The said processing charges were not made known to the petitioners before sanctioning the loan and on the day of disbursement of loan, the petitioner no.1 was charged a sum of Rs.3,309/- as legal fee, had to pay for stamp paper of Rs.2,000/- and processing charges of Rs.16,545/- without any prior information about the said charges. Likewise, the respondent no.1 has charged to a sum of Rs.19,800/- from petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4 without furnishing any prior information. The petitioners were charged Rs.36,800/- which was deducted from their account. The respondents have also charged excess housing loan interest against the RBI rules. The interest ought to be 8.25% for 1st & 2nd years and for 3rd and 4th year, it should have been 10.5%.
3. The petitioners at this juncture had no other alternative but to receive the loan amount after paying the processing and other charges as levied upon them by the respondents, as the deed of sale was had to be executed on that day. The petitioner later sought and collected information from other nationalized banks. As per RBI, guidelines housing loan upto a sum of Rs.20,000/- carries no processing charges and this had been published by the respondents too. The stamp papers received by the respondents also were higher than that charged by other banks and as per the rules of RBI stamp paper of Rs.200/- ought to be taken.
The respondents had no right to charge Rs.3,300/- as legal fee without issuing any receipt and also a sum of Rs.7,950/- as valuation charges. Thus, the act of levying processing charges, stamp paper and legal fee and valuation fee where in the respondents have made publication to the customers for the same as per to the RBI rules and not issuing the receipt/bill for the charges for legal opinion and valuation tantamounts to deficiency of service. It is prayed that this Honble Court be pleased to grant following reliefs :-
Relief prayed for
a) Refund of charges received with interest @ 16% p.a. 56,321.00
b) To refund excess stamp paper Charge with interest @ 16% p.a. 10,000.00
c) Mental Stress and agony 15,000.00
d) Miscellaneous 10,000.00
e) Refund of excess interest Charged on housing loan 1,13,321.00 Total 2,04,642.00
4. Respondents/Opposite parties in their reply before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimoga (short, District Forum) stated that :-
3. The complainant approached the opponent Bank for availing housing loan and the Bank has agreed to lend to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs in the name of the petitioner no.2 etc. are also true. The respondent no.1 undertook the process of sanctioning the loan to a sum of Rs.20 lakhs as against the sale consideration of Rs.62 lakhs. The averments that the sale amount of the house being a sum of Rs.62 lakhs, there was shortage of funds for the said purchase and so the complainant nos.2, 3 and 4 availed gold loan and approached the opponent no.1 for gold loan is false. It is true that the 3 gold loan for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs each was taken for domestic purpose on 9.9.2010. Housing loan of Rs.20 lakhs was sanctioned to the party and released on 18.9.2010.
Adhesive stamp of Rs.2,000/- and Jewel Appraiser fee of Rs.2,000/- and service charges of Rs.600/- (i.e. total amount of Rs.4,600/- was collected for each) and not Rs.6,600/- as stated by the complainant. The complainant will be put to strict proof of the same. It is false to say that the opponent no.1 had not given the gold loan cards. The opponent issued Jewel loan Dockets while arranging loan. It is false to state that the opponent has not made known to the complainant the processing charges before giving loan. It is further false to state the Bank has charged excess interest on housing loan. The complainant will be put to strict proof of the same.
There is no cause of action for the complaint as stated by the complainants.
The complainants have failed to pay the valuation charges to the panel Engineer of the Bank. When the same is demanded, the complainant has filed this false and frivolous complaint against the opponent. The forum has no jurisdiction to interfere in respect of the service charges, stamp duty of the state levied by the Bank.
It is submitted that the complainants have enquired with regard to the rate of interest, stamp duty applicable under the stamp act, service charges, legal fees and other incidental charges etc. the complainants have entered into the contract of availing loan after executing necessary documents in favour of the Bank and filed this false and frivolous and untenable case against the opponents only when the valuation report fee of the Panel Engineer is demanded to the complainants. The processing of the loans was made well in time and the loan is released well in time. The complainants have utilized the loan for their good and fruit full cause. The complainant not questioned till the loan is disbursed and they have come up after executing the necessary agreements etc. and availed all the benefits as per Bank Rules. No deficiency is found in giving service. The complainants have not paid the valuation fee payable to the Panel Engineer.
5. District Forum vide order dated 23.2.2011 while dismissing the complaint observed that :-
Therefore, in our view there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops in collecting loan processing charges for each and every loan of the complainants and in collecting stamp duty, which goes to Government and other charges collected by the Bank in sanctioning the loan are actual expenditure incurred by the Bank in processing the loan. The complainants are now also in due, to the Bank an amount of Rs.7,950/-, the charges of engineer towards valuation of the house purchased by the complainant and pledged to the Bank. The complainants are in accordance with law liable to pay the house valuation charges to the Bank. The complainants when purchased the house by obtaining the loan from the Bank and in turn mortgaged the said house to the Bank, then it is the bounden duty of the complainants to pay house valuation of charges of Rs.7,950/- to the Bank. The complainants without paying the house valuation charges, by saying the Ops collected higher amount of charges and charged higher rate of interest, approached this forum to grant compensation. Therefore, the claim of compensation by the complainants in the above complaint is not justifiable as against the complainants due of Rs.7,950/- towards house valuation charge to the Bank. Therefore, we answer of point No.2 in negative.
Point No.3 -- As per our above discussions and findings on Point nos.1 and 2 in negative. We proceed to pass the following order:
The complaint filed by the complainants against the Ops 1 to 3 is hereby dismissed.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 29.1.2014 also dismissed the appeal and observed that :-
7. From the averments made in the appeal memorandum and after having considered the arguments of the learned counsel and on careful perusal of the findings of the District Forum one thing is very clear that whenever the customers approaches the Bank with a view to availing loan under certain heads, the customers and more particularly the banks are abide by the terms and conditions and the rules enacted by the Reserve Bank of India. It is also seen from the impugned order that for the loans availed by the complainants, the rate of interest was floating and that the complainants have not approached any higher authorities of the respondent bank questioning the rate of interest charged by the respondent bank. Whenever a bank sanctions the loan and if for any reason, the customers have their own doubts with regard to the rate of interest charged by such banks, the consumer forums established under the Act cannot be questioned the same since fixing of rate of interest or altering the rate of interest will always depends upon the guidelines received from the Reserve Bank of India. Moreover, in the present case on hand, from the impugned order it is seen that all the details of charges and other expenses relating to the loan availed by the complainants were made known before sanctioning the loan. The respondent bank is at liberty to charge higher rate of interest as per RBI rules and also independent decisions taken by the Board of Directors of the Bank. The District Forum in its order has also observed that the complainants have not paid the house violation charges of Rs.7,950/-.
The DF considering these facts, in our view by appreciating the materials evidence placed before it has rightly comes to the conclusion in dismissing the complaint and the same does not require any interference. Accordingly, we pass the following order :-
Appeal is dismissed. The order dated 23.2.2011 passed by the DF, Shimoga in complaint No.17/2011 is confirmed.
7. Hence, the revision petition.
8. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the record.
9. As per the counsel, the only grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the processing charges and the surveyor charges taken by the respondents. It is stated that while negotiating the loan these charges had not been mentioned. We are not convinced by the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner. It is clear from the letter of sanction dated 18.9.2010 that while sanctioning the credit facility of Rs.20 lakhs for building house, the respondent/Bank had clearly indicated that the processing charges would be Rs.16,545/- and the legal/valuation/surveyor charges is Rs.3,309/-. The petitioner was well aware that he had to pay the same at the time of availing of the loan.
Thus, we find no merit in the present revision petition.
10. Honble Supreme Court in Mrs.Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed ;
Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.
11. Thus, no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act. Since, both the fora below have given detailed and reasoned order which do not call for any interference nor they suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed.
12. No order as to cost.
.
(REKHA GUPTA) (MEMBER) .
(AJIT BHARIHOKE, J) (PRESIDING MEMBER) Sonia/