STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION,ODISHA,CUTTACK CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 20 OF 2021 Yasobant Das, S/o Late Sh. N.K.Das, R/o Ram Bhawan, Stoney Road, Dagarpada, Cuttack – 753002, Odisha … Complainant Vrs.

1. State Bank of India, Through its Chairman, Corporate C entre, State Bank of Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai Street, Maharashtra – 400021

2. Zonal Manager, S.B.I., Zonal Office, A Block, Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110001 3. AGM- Regional Manager, S.B.I., Sbthouse, 3rd Floor, 184, Aryasamajroad, Karolbagh, New Delhi

4. Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Office, At – E 1/11, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi - 110017 … Opp.Parties For the complainant:M/s R. Roy& Associates For the opp.parties:M/s H.K.Kar& Associates P R E S E N T:

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE D.P.CHOUDHURY, PRESIDENT, DR P.K.PRUSTY, MEMBER AND MISS S.L.PATTNAIK, MEMBER DATED THE 08^thMAY, 2023

O R D E R

DR. D.P. CHOUDHURY J., PRESIDENT The captioned complaint case filed by the complainant alleging about deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Ops and thereby claim compensation and cost thereof.

FACTS

2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that the complainant is a senior advocate practicing in Supreme Court of India and various High Courts in the country and permanent resident of Stony Road, Dagarpada, Cuttack. It is alleged inter alia that complainant in order have a residential house at New Delhi for the health of his wife purchased a built up property in B-100, Sector – 14, Noida, U.P. by incurring loan of Rs.1,10,79,835/- from the Ops – Bank on 17.9.2009. Out of tis amount, Rs.1,00,000/- was kept as house building loan and Rs.10,79,835/- was taken as another loan for debiting the amount for the policy secured for his loan amount. Mutually agreement was executed on 17.9.2009 between the Ops and the complainant. According to the complainant there is clause – 4(c) (iv) and clause – 5 thereof postulates two things:- (1) increase of the rate of interest shall be communicated to the borrower by a notice and if the borrower does not agree for the said increase the loan agreement will be terminated and pre-closure is mandatory for the borrower and (2) when the EMI does not cover the increase in the interest rate, the bank may increase the EMI. The complainant alleged that in 2010 the interest was increased without any notice to him against the EMI of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the complainant right from 2009 to 2021. Complainant alleged that two deficiencies in service commenced by the OPs.i.e. (a) Without notice increase the rate of interest (b) No increase in the EMI amount which is not charged by the Bank through ECS mode.

3. Complainant further alleged that he received a phone call and the person instructed him to pay Rs.1.14 crore to the OPs. By getting such informationcomplainantwassurprised and also got pain in his mind. On 28.6.2021 complainant made written complaint to the Ops about grievance made by the Ops. On 5.8.2021 the Ops replied the complainant vide E-mail that it has acknowledged the mistake and accordingly that excess interest charged at the rate of 0.25% for the period from 17.9.2021 to 15.2.20216 amounting to Rs.95,676.78 credited by the Bank to his account. On 20.8.2021 complainant received another legal notice from the OPs where he was directed to pay Rs.1,12,75,011.98 within seven days of the notice with interest because they have called the entire loan in question by making the loan as NPA. Complainant having found such unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs filed the complaint seeking relief against the OPs. Complainant has prayed in the complaint by asking the relief in the following manner:-

a) Compensation for mental agony and harassment due to opposite parties Rs.1,00,00,000/-.

b) Compensation for loss of time Rs.25,00,000/-.

c) Cost of litigation Rs.1,25,000/-.

As such all together Rs.1,26,25,000/- claimed by the complainant against the Ops with 18% interest thereof from the date o