ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH Date of institution : 30.07.2019 Date of Reserve : 16.10.2023 Date of Decision : 07.11.2023 Daljit Singh, aged about 71 years s/o Sh. Gulzar Singh, resident of Kothi No.161, Phase 3B1, S.A.S. Nagar-Mohali (Punjab).

…….Complainant Versus

1. Central Bank of India, Chander Mukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director. E-mail bmchan3262@centralbank

2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Bank of India, Chander Mukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai. E-mail bmchan3262@centralbank

3. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sector 70, S.A.S.

Nagar-Mohali. E-mail bmchan3262@centralbank ……..Opposite Parties Consumer Complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:-

Mr. Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-

For the complainant : Sh. P.S. Saini, Advocate For the OPs : Sh.Naren Pratap Singh, Advocate HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER The case has been received by remand from the Hon’ble National Commission by setting aside the order dated 28.01.2020 passed by this Commission, wherein the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed. The Hon’ble National Commission allowed the appeal filed by the appellants/opposite parties, and remanded the case back to Commission for deciding the same afresh on 23.03.2023 and to pass orders on merits.

2. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “C.P. Act”) for issuance of following directions to the opposite parties (in short "OPs"):-

i) to receive the remaining 52 EMIs i.e. Rs.8,87,380 as per the loan agreement, as sanctioned by OPs for 132 months without claiming interest in one go;

ii) to adjust the rate of EMI, as per the original loan agreement, as agreed between both the parties at the time of execution of loan agreement; and iii) to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of mental pain and agony and to pay Rs.55,000/-, as litigation cost.

3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that complainant had taken loan of Rs.20 lakhs from HDFC Bank in the month of June 2012. Complainant and his wife Sukhjit Kaur were having a saving account with OPs-bank and requested the OP-bank to take over the loan from HDFC Bank. OP-bank accepted the request and took over the above said loan amount and sanctioned a housing loan of Rs.30 lakhs for a period of 132 months at the monthly installment of Rs.38,500/-. The complainant had attained the age of 64 years, OP-bank informed him that as per bank norms, OP- bank could not sanction the loan beyond the age of 65 years. Accordingly, OP-bank sanctioned the housing loan in the name of his wife Sukhjit Kaur, who was 54 years of age at that time. The complainant had received SMS of Rs.38,500/- of installment (Rs.26,250/- towards interest and Rs.12,250/- towards principal amount). He paid installments of Rs.38,500/- per month regularly from 12.11.2012 to 02.10.2013 from the joint saving account. His wife expired on 11.04 2016 and complainant owned the liability of the loan. The loan was sanctioned by OP-bank for 132 months which can be verified from the record of OP-bank and also through audit report of Auditors appointed by RBI. From 01.11.2014, OP- bank unilaterally enhanced the period of loan from 11 years to 15 years and it has been regularly recovering installment from joint saving accounts. Bank has no power to sanction the loan beyond 65 years of age and the rules are not allowed of enhancement of installments beyond 65 years. It was done by OP-bank without the consent of complainant and without execution of any fresh set of documents. After recovering 33 Installments for Rs.11,53,064/-, the OP-bank misappropriate the entire amount towards the interest. The loan was sanctioned for Rs.30 lakhs and after recovering 33 installments, this amount become Rs.32,58,794/- and the fabricated bala