Case nº First Appeal No. 279 Of 2011, (Against the Order dated 23/05/2011 in Complaint No. 41/1999 of the State Commission Bihar of NCDRC Cases, May 12, 2017 (case Neelam Pansari & Anr Vs C.G.M. State Bank Of India & Anr.)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate With Mr. Mr. Tushar Dureja, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Bhaskar Vali, Advocate
PresidentMr. D.K. Jain,President and Mrs. M. Shreesha,Member
Resolution DateMay 12, 2017
Issuing OrganizationNCDRC Cases


Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member

  1. Aggrieved by the order in Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 1999 passed by the Bihar State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Patna (in short the "State Commission"), the Complainant preferred this appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (in short "the Act"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint on the ground that there was no deficiency on behalf of the OPs in charging interest at quarterly rests as per the terms of the Agreement.

  2. The facts material to the case, are that the Complainant entered into an initial agreement with the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as SBI) for a period of 5 years with an option to SBI for renewal of the lease for a further period of 5 years on mutually agreed terms and conditions. It was averred that according to the terms and conditions of the offer letter, a term loan of ₹15,00,000/- was sanctioned at 15% p.a. interest. The entire loan amount with the interest was to be liquidated by the Complainant by depositing 87% of the monthly rental proceeds in the loan account within the initial lease period of 5 years. The Complainant consented to the offer letter on 08.11.1990. Subsequently, on 26.03.1991, SBI intimated that the interest rate would be 16% p.a. instead of 15% p.a. The Complainant wrote a letter dated 08.04.1991, asking SBI to modify the agreement as the rent had been settled on the basis of the rate of interest and therefore, this cannot be changed at this stage. The letter also referred to the discussions with the premises officer of SBI, who had confirmed to the Complainant that the rate of interest on the loan for construction of the bank premises will not change. Vide letter dated 08.10.1992, the Complainant was informed that the matter was referred to RBI and the final decision would be taken shortly.

  3. On 05.01.1993, the Complainant wrote to the Chief General Manager, SBI regarding the rate of interest and also referred to the circular dated 18.02.1991, in which it was stated that the rate of interest remain unchanged in respect of advances sanctioned before 16.11.1990. The Complainant pleaded that as the term loan of ₹15,00,000/- was sanctioned on 05.11.1990, prior to 16.11.1990, the direction given in this circular should be adhered to. The Complainant also wrote to the Governor RBI on 18.02.1994, for which he received a reply from Assistant Chief Officer, RBI confirming that as per the instructions issued by them in May 1994, periodical revision of interest rates should not be made applicable to premises loans and that the rate of interest charged at the time of sanction of loan should remain unchanged till the loan is liquidated. The captioned loan account was liquidated on 03.01.1996, within the initial lease period of 5 years i.e., 09.02.1996, on adjustment of 87% of the monthly rental proceeds. Once again, the Complainant wrote a letter to SBI on 07.07.1998, requesting them to modify the interest rate and charge at 15% p.a. simple interest and refund the excess amount so realized along with the interest at 15% p.a. compounded at quarterly rests.

  4. It was pleaded that SBI deducted an excess amount of `3,01,599.50/- from the Complainant''s monthly rentals during the period 01.02.1996 to 03.10.1996, which was in violation of the guidelines issued by RBI. The Complainant put forth the whole matter before the Governor, RBI vide a petition dated 27.11.1996, for which he received a reply on 14.01.1999, advising the Complainant to seek help from the grievance cell of RBI. On 23.04.1999, the Complainant addressed a letter to the Governor RBI stating that he had approached all the concerned authorities of SBI but received no response. Subsequently, he filed this Complaint before the State Commission seeking direction to SBI to refund the excess amount of ₹ 3,01,599.50/- with interest rate at 15%p.a compounded at quarterly rests from 01/02/1996, till 30/6/1999, together with costs of ₹45,000/- and `5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony.

  5. SBI in their Written Version stated that as per clause 6 of the Loan Agreement, the Complainant shall be...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT