STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. N K SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE OPs State Bank of India and others have filed this appeal under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 11.2.2010 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T. Chandigarh (herein after to be referred as District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by Sh. N.K.Sharma, respondent was allowed and the OPs were directed as follows:

(2.) ACCORDING to the complainant, he was earlier an employee of the OPs/appellants and retired on 31.3.2001 as Deputy Manager under the SBI Voluntary Retirement Scheme. He had availed a housing loan of Rs. 5 lacs on 2.3.1998 from the Zonal Office, Sector 8, Chandigarh, which was re -payable through instalments at a simple rate of interest of 5.10% per annum upto Rs. 1,10,000 and 11.10% above the aforesaid amount. On his retirement, he offered to continue the facility till 70 years of age and agreed to pay commercial rate of interest as applicable to the public on the entire outstanding loan. The concessionary simple rate of interest applicable to the staff was converted to compounding rate of interest then prevailing @ 13% per annum as applicable to the public. The principal and the accumulated interest were clubbed at Rs. 6,00,563 and the complainant deposited Rs. 1,50,563 on 31.3.2001 and the balance was reduced to Rs. 4,50,000. The EMI was fixed at Rs. 5,850 for remaining 162 months and he started repaying the amount in view of the supplementary agreement dated 11.4.2001 between the parties. Then started a down forward trend in the rate of interest. It came down to 8.25% p.a. in October 2003 and further dipped to 7% or 7.25% p.a. The complainant represented to the appellants on 16.4.2004 requesting for the revision of rate of interest in accordance with the market trend and, thereafter, made several visits to their office but they did not reduce his rate of interest. He then received a letter dated 19.4.2006 whereby not only his request was declined but the floating rate of interest was changed unilaterally to fixed rate of interest and the amount of Rs.53,640 was debited to his account as different of interest. He again represented to the OPs/appellants and approached the Banking Ombudsman but to no effect. Ultimately, he filed the present complaint requesting for the refund of Rs. 53,640, fixing/revising the floating rate from 19.4.2006, for compensation for harassment and legal expenses.

(3.) THE OPs/appellants opposed the complaint on the ground that the loan was advanced to the complainant when he was an employee of the Bank and, therefore, he was not a consumer qua the OPs/appellants Bank. It was admitted that after his retirement, he was allowed to continue the housing loan facility paying interest at commercial rate applicable on the date of retirement regarding which a supplementary agreement dated 11.4.2001 (Annexure C -3) was executed between the parties. It was alleged that the said agreement (C -3) was executed at Ambala Cantt. The office of appellant Bank was also situated at Ambala Cantt and, therefore, the Consumer Fora at Chandigarh have no territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint. It was further alleged by the appellant that the cause of action accrued to the complainant on 19.4.2006 when he received letter (C -16) and, therefore, the present complaint filed in April 2009 is barred by time.