Skip to main content

Bank can't recover EMI on undisbursed loan, rules Forum

Rejecting an argument by SBI that it was not at fault in recovering monthly instalments on "disbursed" housing loan, the Dispute Redressal Forum here has asked the bank to refund the entire EMI charged unduly for 20 months from a policeman and directed it to pay him Rs 50,000 as compensation for deficient services.

In their order, issued last week Forum President M Y Mankar and members Madhuri Vishwarupe and ND Kadam directed the bank to make the payment to complainant Rajendra Sadashiv Pardesi, within the next 40 days or else pay interest on the sum at 6 per cent p.A. Till its realisation.

The new panel has adopted an innovative system by which it directs both the complainant and the respondent to file an affidavit before a specified date as regards the compliance of the Forum order which tracks the pendency in the compliance which was not happening earlier.

In his complaint, the policeman told the Forum that the bank had sanctioned him a housing loan and issued a cheque for Rs 5,61,000 on July 23, 2007 which he handed over to ACP (Police Welfare) on July 25, 2007.

After the issue of the cheque, the bank began recovering the EMI amount of Rs 7,672 from September 01, 2007 till March 2009 after which he was informed by the Police Welfare Authority that the loan amount was not received.

On enquiry, the complainant came to know that the cheque of Rs 5,61,000 handed over by him to the Police Welfare Authority, was not presented for collection till 31/3/2009 and hence, on request of the complainant a fresh cheque was issued to him in April, 2009, the Forum was informed.

Even though the loan amount was not actually disbursed to the complainant till March 2009, the recovery of the housing loan principal and interest at the rate of 10 per cent was made by the bank.

This was in breach of the loan agreement condition that interest is to be charged on the outstanding amount of the disbursed housing loan. Since the loan was not actually paid to the complainant, the recovery of principal amount and interest was not proper.

Hence the complainant filed a complaint claiming refund of principal amount, interest recovered, compensation and cost of the complaint, aggregating to Rs 2,28000.

In their order, the Forum said it was the duty of the complainant's welfare authority to deposit the said cheque for collection, which they appear to have not done.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/bank-can-t-recover-emi-on-undisbursed-loan-rules-forum-115011900244_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more