G. JAYADEVAPPA Vs. MANAGER SYNDICATE BANK DURGIGUDI BRANCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant following reliefs :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_12_LAWS(NCD)1_2015_1.html</FRM>