H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.

First Appeal No.: 05/2023 Date of Presentation: 06.01.2023 Reserved on: 16.12.2025 Date of Decision: 05.01.2026 ……………………………………………………………………………. State Bank of India Branch Khaltoo Nauni, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. through its Branch Manager.

…....... Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus Dr. Chaman Sharma S/o late Sh. G.R. Sharma, R/o Ashray Karol Vihar Colony, Ber ki Ser, P.O. Chambaghat, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P.

..........Respondent/Complainant.

……………………………………………………………………………

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President.

Hon’ble Ms.Yogita Dutta, Member.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

For the Appellant: Ms.Kiran Sharma, Advocate vice Mr.

Arvind Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondent: Mr.Owais Khan Pathan, Advocate.

…………………………………………………………………………….

Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President O R D E R:

Present appeal is preferred against the order dated 16.11.2022 of learned District Commission, Solan, in

1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?

consumer complaint No.151/2019 titled Dr.Chaman Sharma Versus State Bank of India, whereby, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and the opposite party/Bank was directed to issue NOC and to refund Rs.2,07,728/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 8th of May, 2020 till its realization and was further directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- besides litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-.

Brief facts of the Case:

2. Brief facts of the case are that in the month of June, 2004, complainant took house loan from the opposite party/Bank for Rs.4,60,000/- vide loan account No.55002788535. The said loan facility was provided on floating rate of interest. EMI was to be deducted from the salary account of complainant, as per fluctuation, in rate of interest of house loan, as per RBI Guidelines. The said loan was to be repayable in 15 years. Monthly EMI was auto deducted from the salary account of the complainant. The complainant never made any default in making monthly installment nor made any delay to pay the same as the same was auto deducted from the salary account of complainant. The complainant was under the impression that said loan would be completed in June, 2019. On 08.06.2019, complainant received a message from the opposite party/Bank on his mobile phone that an amount of Rs.2,43,903.38/- is still due/irregular in the above said house loan account of the complainant. The opposite party/Bank has levied extra rate of interest to grab more money from the complainant. Therefore, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the present complaint.

3. In reply, the opposite party/Bank has stated that loan was advanced to the complainant in the year 2004 for a sum of Rs.4,60,000/- at the initial floating rate of interest 8.00% per annum with monthly rest, which was subject to variation and fluctuation, as per the guidelines and instructions of RBI from time to time. Due to fluctuation in the rate of interest, the increased interest amount accrued in the loan account of the complainant but the EMIs remained fixed at Rs.4398/-. As per fluctuation in the rate of interest, EMI was to be increased as per increased rate of interest from time to time but the bank has not received any message from the complainant to deduct higher amount of EMI from the salary account of complainant. The information regarding fluctuation in rate of interest was given to the complainant time to time. As such, there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

4. The complainant has filed rejoinder denying the contents of reply filed by opposite party and reiterating those of complaint.

5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After hearing the parties, learned District Commission allowed the com