State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shankaralingappa vs Branch Manage, Canara Bank on 2 June, 2022
1
APPEAL No.1542/2016
Date of Filing : 02.07.2016
Date of Disposal : 02.06.2022
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED: 02.06.2022
PRESENT
Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER APPEAL NO.1542/2016 Mr Shankaralingappa S/o Shivarayappa Hooli Aged about 70 years, R/o Gowrishankar Nagar, Near Gowrishankar Gudi, Ranebennur, Taluk Ranebennur, Haveri District.
(By Mr Rajashekhar K, Advocate) Appellant
-Versus-
Branch Manage, Canara Bank
Ranebennur Branch,
Station Road,
Ranebnnur,
Haveri District.
(By Mr V.Haridas Bhat, Advocate) Respondent
-:ORDER:-
Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by Complainant aggrieved by the Order dated 31.05.2016 passed in Consumer Complaint No.35/2015 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haveri (for short, the District Forum).
2. The Commission heard learned counsels on record for the appeal and examined the impugned order along with LCR.
1 2 APPEAL No.1542/20163. The Complainant/Appellant being a customer of Respondent/OP Bank raised Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of CP Act, 1986 wherein sought for a direction to OP for return of original title deeds of the properties deposited at the time of availing home loan and sought No Due Certificate. This complaint on admission contested by OP/Respondent, contending Rs.97,564/- is still due and this was intimated to the complainant through a letter dated 24.08.2015 and the forum below held an enquiry and only on the basis of said letter dismissed the complaint with no order as to costs, which is impugned herein in this Appeal.
4. Learned counsel for Appellant submits that District Forum failed to appreciate Ex-R1 housing loan agreement as these terms are binding on the parties were not at all considered to consider the case of the complainant. It is not in dispute that Complainant and OP are entered into housing loan agreement on a date shown, which provides for certain clauses, in particular Clause-5 reads the borrower agrees to repay the housing loan to the Bank by 120 EMI/equal monthly instalments of Rs.4,290/- each, the first of such instalments shall be paid on or before October 2005 and Clause-6 provides for the borrower shall pay interest at 8.25% per annum and such interest shall be calculated and charged on the balance in account and be debited to the account and payable every quarter, if interest is not paid, the same shall become compounded with the principal balance outstanding in the account, of such balance and on such successive balances the borrower shall become liable to pay further interest from time to time provided that the interest payable by the borrower shall be subject to change in the interest rates made by Bank from time to time.
5. Thus taking in consideration of the above such terms learned counsel for the appellant submits that these terms are misread and 2 3 APPEAL No.1542/2016 they are to be read conjointly and not in isolation and on the contrary learned counsel for Respondent/OP submits that though parties agreed in this loan agreement rate at 8.25% per annum but as per clause, the borrower shall be liable to pay the change interest rates made by bank from time to time, which in our view not correct since under Clause-5 complainant agreed to repay housing loan to the Bank by 120 EMI monthly instalment of Rs.4,290/- and this loan has to be discharged on or before a date fixed by the Op an it is submitted that the loan availed is fully paid or discharged 5 months prior to the date fixed was not at all considered by District Forum. Learned counsel submits that question of payment of changed interest rates would arise only if interest is not paid by the Complainant or only when Complainant failed to pay fixed EMI's along with interest and in his case such occasion never arose since paid even 5 months before the date fixed for last instalment. It is also submitted that a letter of appreciation is also sent to the complainant for having paid on time and even before the date fixed to pay the last instalment. In such circumstances, the contention of the counsel for OP/Respondent that Appellant/Complainant is still due in consideration of the default clause is unacceptable and we hold that the forum below failed to consider these clauses in right perception, in consideration of the fact that the complainant agreed for fixed rate of interest and not the flouting interest.
6. It is to be noted herein that nothing is placed on record, which could be borne from impugned order that RBI directed to charge floating rate of interest even if parties agreed for payment of EMI's along with interest at fixed rate. In such circumstances, impugned order passed by District Forum has to be held contrary to facts and law.
3 4 APPEAL No.1542/20167. Learned counsel for OP/Appellant has relied a decision in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd., Vs Krishan Datta and Ors. decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein in Para 7 held that it is settled law that a contract has to be read as a whole and the terms of the contract cannot be read or construed in isolation. In para 8 held that Mr P Chidambaram, learned senior counsel submitted on these grounds that the order passed by the National Commission should be set aside and the order so passed by the State Commission should be upheld by this Court. However, he has made it clear that he is considering the rights, which has been given by the National Commission in favour of the Respondents before us and agreed to give effect to the order so passed by the National Commission in their favour only but he made it clear that such concession would not be applicable to other cases.
8. In para 9 held that after hearing Mr. P.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel in the matter and also after hearing the Respondent No.1 appearing in person, we find that the, grounds advanced before us by Mr.P.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel, in our opinion, have to be accepted and accordingly, we allow the Appeal, set aside the order so passed by the State Commission. The concession, which has been given by Mr. P.Chidambaram on behalf of his client in favour of the Respondents are not curtailed by us. The benefit of the order of the National Commission will go in their favour as conceded by Mr.P.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel on instructions from his client. Since we are allowing this Appeal on the above terms, the amount which has already been deposited by order dated 22.01.2015 should be refunded by the Registry to the Appellant bank within a period of two weeks, ordered accordingly.
9. Having read the above decision, in our view, on facts of the case it does not come to the assistance of the OP/Respondent, to 4 5 APPEAL No.1542/2016 enforce for flouting rate of interest on housing loan even when agreed for fixed rate of interest. As already stated above and it is found from the impugned order and the loan agreement terms the complainant never agreed to pay floating rate of interest and he never defaulted in repaying EMI's to the OPs Bank.
10. In the above such circumstances, we do not find any legal force in contentions of the Respondent. Accordingly, we proceed to allow Appeal. Consequently, set aside the impugned Order dated 31.05.2016 passed in Consumer Complaint No.35/2015 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haveri and direct the OP Bank to issue No Due Certificate, return original title deeds in favour of Complainant/loanee and return the amount recovered from his pension account along with interest prevailing applicable to the savings bank account and do pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs within 60 days from the date of the order.
11. Office is directed to return the LCR forthwith.
12. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well the parties.
Lady Member Judicial Member
*s
5