State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
A.Anand Rao, S/O. A. Ramakrishan Rao, ... vs 1. The P.N.B. Hosusing Finance Ltd., ... on 27 March, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana First Appeal No. FA/1212/2013 ( Date of Filing : 19 Oct 2013 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 19/08/2013 in Case No. CC/153/2012 of District Hyderabad-II) 1. A.Anand Rao, S/o. A. Ramakrishan Rao, Aged about 46 Years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. 16-2-836/27/A, LIC Colony, Saidabad, Hydedrabad. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. 1. The P.N.B. Hosusing Finance Ltd., Rep. by its Vice President, 6-1-73, Sayeeda Plaza, Lajkidi-ka-pool Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2. 2. The Vice-President, The P.N.B. Housing Finance Ltd., Rep. by its Vice President 6-1-73, Saeed Plaza, Lakdi-ka-pool, Saifabad, Hyderabad. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 27 Mar 2018 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA : At HYDERABAD FA 1212 of 2013 AGAINST CC No. 153 of 2012, DISTRICT FORUM II, HYDERABAD Between : Anand Rao, S/o A. Ramakishan Rao, Aged about 56 years, Occ : Advocate R/o 16-2-836/27/A, LIC colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad ..Appellant/complainant And The P.N. B. Housing Finance Ltd Rep. by its Vice President, 6-1-73, Sayeeda Plaza, lakdikapool Saifabad, Hyderabad. The Vice-President, The P.N.B. Housing Finance Ltd Rep. by its Vice-president 6-173, Saeed Plaza, Lakdikappol Saifabad, Hyderabad .. Respondents/Ops. Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. D. Jawaharlal Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. K. Papi Reddy Coram : Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla ... President And Sri Patil Vithal Rao ... Member
Tuesday, the Twenty Seventh Day of March Two Thousand Eighteen Oral order : ( per Hon' ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President ) ***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 19/08/2013 made in CC 153/2012 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM -II, Hyderabad.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he availed two housing loans vide loan Account bearing No.6660002560 for Rs.6.00 lakhs in the month of May, 2003 and loan Account bearing No. 6660002893 in the month of September, 2004 from the first opposite party for the purpose of construction of his own residential flat No. 207, TNR's Vasavi Emerald Judges Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad by mortgaging the said property by way of equitable mortgage. Despite fixed rate of interest @ Rs.9.25% and 9.25% per annum charged enhanced rate of interest @ 12.5% and 13.75% per annum respectively. When tried to transfer the loan amount to Bank of India, he was shown as a defaulter in Loan Account bearing No,. 6660002893 and the same was shown as ' written off" in the CIBIL. On his complaint, it was remarked as by ' mistake'. At last, after mortgaging the documents, the Bank of India sanctioned loan amount to the opposite parties, but, the opposite parties collected 2% penal interest on pre-matured discharge of loan. Collecting enhanced rate of interest and 2% penal interest for premature discharge of loan amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- towards damages, to refund the amount of excess rate over and above the fixed rate of interest and costs.
4). The opposite parties 1 and 2 opposed the above complaint by way of written version, while admitting the sanction of two loans mentioned above and collecting the amount with enhanced rate of interest, contending that the amounts to be repaid with interest @9.5% flexible, i.e, floating rate of interest which is variable subject to changes as per the terms and conditions of the RBI Guidelines. In response to the letter dated 27.11.2008, they have clarified to the complainant and his wife vide letter 02.12.2008 that the rate of interest is floating rate. With regard to Loan Account bearing No,. 6660002893 he was shown as ' written off" in the CIBIL, they remarked that as soon as the said mistake was brought to their notice, immediately they have corrected and informed the same to the Bank of India. The above loans were cleared through the loan proceeds sanctioned by the Bank of India by way of take over as desired by the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A7 and the opposite parties filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex. B1 to B-10. Both sides filed their respective written arguments.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, held and directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to refund 1% of the prepayment charges of Rs.4,566/- along with subsequent interest @ 10% pa from the date of payment, i.e., 16.6.2010 and costs of Rs.2,000/- within 30 days.
7) Dis-satisfied with the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal before this Commission.
8). None appears since a long time on both sides and they did not choose to file their respective written arguments despite giving last chance. Hence the matter was reserved for orders.
09) The points that arise for consideration are, (i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? (ii) To what relief ? 10). Point No. 1 :
There is no dispute the appellant/complainant obtained two loans in question above mentioned by mortgaging his property from the respondents/opposite parties Bank. There is also no dispute that the said loans were cleared in the respondents/opposite parties bank through the loan proceeds sanctioned by the Bank of India by way of take over as desired by the complainant.
11). The first contention is that the respondents/opposite parties charged floating rate of interest @ interest @ 12.5% and 13.75% per annum respectively despite fixed rate of interest @ 9.25% pa. On the other hand, the respondents/ opposite parties argued that the rate of interest is @ 9.5% pa and it is flexible and it is liable to be changed from time to time as per the Guidelines of RBI and it was also informed to the appellant and his wife vide their letter 02.12.2008.
12) The further contention of the appellant/complainant is that though he discharged the entire loan amounts, the respondents/opposite parties collected 2% penal interest on pre-matured discharge of loan illegally. On the other hand, the respondents/opposite parties rebutted the same contending that it was charged as per the loan agreements.
13). The further contention of the appellant/complainant that he was shown as a defaulter in Loan Account bearing No,. 6660002893 and the same was shown as "written off " in the CIBIL and it damaged his reputation and the respondents/opposite parties did not take steps to rectify the same. Hence it is discredited by the respondents/opposite parties explaining that it was a technical mistake and it was rectified immediately after it was brought to their notice.
14). The District Forum observed that as per Ex. B1 sanctioned order dated 16.04.2003 the rate of interest is 9.5% p.a. and as per clause 7(b), the rate of interest is subject to the revision in terms of the loan agreement to be executed by you and subject to any higher rate that may be prevailing at the time of the last disbursement and further as per clause 17, an extra charge of 2% on the amount prepaid as an early redemption charges or Rs.500/- whichever is higher shall be leviable and came to the conclusion that the respondents could not have charged more than @1% relying on the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in between Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd and another Vs. Surendra Mohan Arora, reported in 2012 IV CPJ 525 (NC) and since the Respondents/opposite parties have collected an amount of Rs.9,132/- and hence the appellant is entitled to refund an amount of Rs.4,566/- with interest @ 10% pa from the date of payment i.e., 16.6.2010.
15). The main contention of the appellant in the appeal grounds is that the District Forum failed to see that the appellant is a respectful citizen and a Practising Advocate and undergone major Heart surgery and at that stage if he is ranked as defaulter by citing his name in the " CIBIL" is a stigma to his reputation and his reputation was damaged and he suffered mental agony and therefore claimed Rs.19 lakhs. On the other hand, the respondents/opposite parties already admitted that it is a technical mistake and when it was brought to their notice immediately it was rectified and it was informed to the Bank of India.. In the prevailing circumstances of transfer of loan amount from the respondents Bank to the Bank of India, when the Bank of India refused to sanction loan on the ground of defaulter in the CIBIL, though, the appellant has been discharging loan instalments regularly in the respondents' Bank , definitely , it might have caused mental agony to him. From the above facts, it is to be inferred that it might have been due to 'mistake', but, not intentional. Further, there is no evidence before us that the said mistake was not rectified. It appears, the appellant is in the mood of 'ego' for not expressing regrets from the side of the respondents Bank and hence he claims damages for his reputation. The District Forum took this aspect lightly and hence did not award any amount. However, claiming an amount of Rs.19 lakhs is exorbitant and fixing it at Rs.10,000/- will meet the ends of justice.
16). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that the respondents' Bank is liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages to the appellant/complainant, while confirming refund of amount of Rs.4,566/-with subsequent interest @10% from the date of payment, i.e, 16.06.2010 and Rs.2,000/- towards costs. If the respondents/opposite parties did not take any steps to get the name of the appellant/complainant removed from the CIBIL INTEREST FORM in which he was cited as a defaulter, the respondents/ opposite parties are liable to rectify the same immediately.
17). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned order dated 19.08.2013 in CC 153 of 2012 on the file of the District Forum II, Hyderabad is modified directing the respondents/opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards damages while confirming refund of amount of Rs.4,566/-with subsequent interest @10% from the date of payment, i.e, 16.06.2010 and costs of Rs.2,000/- as ordered by the District Forum. If the respondents/opposite parties did not take any steps to get the name of the appellant/complainant removed from the CIBIL INTEREST FORM in which he was cited as a defaulter, the respondents/ opposite parties are hereby directed to rectify the same immediately. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 27.03.2018. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER