DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __104_ _ OF ___2017
DATE OF FILING :_8.8.2017 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: _23.7.2018_
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Sri Pradyut Bagani, son of Sri Patit Bagani of P.O Vivekanandapur, Gunney gangad-harpur, Ashuti, P.S Maheshtala, Kolkata – 141.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Jagannathnagar Branch, represented by its Branch Manager of Akra Jagannath Nagar, P.S Maheshtala, South 24-Parganas, Kolkata 140.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Park Circus Branch, represented by it’s Branch Manager Sayed Amir Ali Avenue, Kolkata – 17.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Briefly stated, the facts which have galvanized the complainant to file the instant case, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, are that the complainant took a loan of Rs.48,700/- on 20.6.2008 from the O.P-1 Bank for purchasing a two wheeler on hypothecation of the said vehicle. But the allegation of the complainant is that said Bank supplied no documents whatsoever to him at the time of sanction or disbursement of the loan. He has paid Rs.50,000/- up to 18.8.2016. Inspite of the above payment being made by the complainant, the Bank has liquidated the LIC Policy which was deposited with O.P-1 and that was done by the O.P-1 in collusion with the O.P-2 i.e LICI. So, the instant case is filed by the complainant before this Forum, praying for compensation etc. Hence, arises the instant case.
It is the O.P-1 who has filed written version of its statement ,wherein it is contended inter alia that the loan amount of Rs.48,700/- was sanctioned and disbursed to the complainant on 20.6.2008. It was agreed by the complainant that the loan amount would be repaid by him in 60 EMIs of Rs.1072/- each within July, 2013. Sanction letter was supplied to the complainant by the Bank. LIC Policy deed was taken as an additional security and the complainant assigned the said policy to O.P-1 on 3.8.2008 by making due endorsement thereon. Notice of such assignment was also given to the O.P-2 i.e LICI authorities. The complainant failed to repay the loan installments in terms of the agreement made by him and , therefore, the loan account turned into Non-Production-Asset (NPA) on 19.8.2014. Notice was also issued by the Bank to the complainant before adjustment of LIC proceeds with the loan account of the complainant and by that notice the complainant was asked to liquidate his outstanding liability, but the complainant paid no heed to their request and ,therefore, the LIC Policy was encashed and the loan amount was liquidated on 18.4.2016. After liquidation of the loan amount the balance amount of Rs.20,227/- has been paid to the complainant. The complainant has no cause of action to bring the instant complaint against the O.Ps and, therefore, the complaint should be dismissed in limini.
Written version of statement is also filed by the O.P-2, wherein it is contended that there is no cause of action arising against the said O.P and that the complainant is not a consumer of the said O.P. So, the question of deficiency in service does not arise against him and, therefore, the case should be dismissed in limini with cost.
Upon the averments of the parties following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Evidence on affidavit is led on behalf of the complainant and the O.P-1. No evidence is filed by the O.P-2 and, therefore, the case is heard exparte against him. The BNAS filed by the complainant is kept in the record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :
In the instant case, it is the allegation of the complainant that the Bank i.e O.P-1 did not provide any copy of documents of loan including the sanction letter to him and that is why, it was not possible for him to know what the repayment schedule was or what the term of repayment of the loan was. It is the further allegation of the complainant that the Bank has recovered more amount from him than the amount to which it was actually entitled to. The contention of the Bank i.e O.P-1 is that they delivered all loan documents to the complainant at the time of execution of the loan agreement, that the Insurance proceeds has been lawfully encashed and the proceeds of the Insurance Policy have been lawfully adjusted with the loan account of the complainant and the balance surplus amount has been returned to the complainant after adjustment of the Insurance Proceeds with the loan account of the complainant. So, to O.P-1, there is no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.
Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers ,appearing for both the parties. Perused the complaint and written statement and all the documents filed on behalf of the parties. Considered all these.
It is admitted fact that the complainant took a loan of Rs.48,700/- from the O.P-1 for purchasing a two wheeler and the vehicle was also hypothecated to the bank. It is also admitted fact that one LIC Policy Deed was also assigned to O.P-1 by the complainant at the time of taking loan. It is incumbent upon the O.P-1 to supply all documents of loan to the complainant at the time of sanction of the loan. If these documents are not supplied to the loanee , there must be lack of transparency on the part of the Bank, which is not desirable conduct on the part of the Bank, O.P-1.
A Booklet named “Code of Banks Commitment to Customer” has been filed and the same is kept in the record. Clause 8.12.1 .2 thereof deals with applications for loans and their processing. Sub-Clause L thereof enjoins the bank to send a letter or mail or SMS about the status of the account of Loanee before it becomes NPA. Sub Clause ‘l’ thereof enjoins the bank to provide the sanctioned letter detailing all particulars of amount sanctioned and the terms and conditions of the repayment of loan. Sub clause ‘h’ thereof lays down that the bank will provide the loanee an amortization schedule (Schedule of repayment of principal and interest for the duration of the loan) . In sub clause ‘k’ thereof it is provided that the bank will give written receipt for all documents to title taken as security/collateral for any loan. Sub clause ‘l’ thereof lays down that the bank will endeavour to send the Loanee a communication through letter/mail or SMS about the status of the loan account before it becomes NPA. So, it is found that providing copy of sanctioned letter and other documents including repayment schedule to the Loanee is obligatory on the part of the Bank.
In the instant case, it is the case of the complainant that no copy of sanction letter nor any repayment schedule has been furnished to him by the Bank i.e O.P-1. The Bank has filed a copy of sanction letter which is kept in the record. A perusal of the said sanction letter reveals that the sanction letter bears the signature of the complainant. But, it does not bear any endorsement to the effect that the copy of sanction letter is received by the complainant. In absence of such an endorsement on the sanction letter, we cannot say that the copy of sanction letter was furnished to the complainant by the Bank, O.P-1. Non-compliance of the Code of Conduct by the Bank in the matter of supply of copy of sanction letter is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the Bank i.e O.P-1. That apart, it is also obligatory on the part of the Bank to provide a repayment schedule to the complainant/Loanee. No copy of repayment schedule has been filed herein by the Bank. Non-filing of such a repayment schedule before the Forum by the Bank implies that such a repayment schedule has not been prepared by the Bank and this is also violation of the code of conduct by the bank and such violation also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P-1. It is also equally obligatory on the part of the Bank i.e O.P-1 to send communication by way of letter/mail/SMS to the Loanee about the status of the loan account before it becomes NPA.
In the instant case, the loan account has been marked as NPA on 19.8.2014 by the O.P-1. But no notice as required by the Code of Conduct has been given to the complainant/Loanee before declaring his loan account as NPA by the O.P-1. This also seems to be a clear violation of the code of conduct by the O.P-1 and such violation is also a gross deficiency in service. The rules regarding code of conduct are laid down by the competent authority to ensure transparency in the transaction of the bank with their customers. If these rules are given go-bye by the Bank, transparency in their dealing is affected. Lack of transparency in their dealings is a kind of deficiency in service. The Bank i.e O.P-1 is found guilty of those deficiencies in service as pointed out above.
The bank i.e O.P-1 is further found to be deficient in services in another aspect. The statement of loan account of the complainant has been filed on record by the Bank and it is also the version of the bank that the loan account has been marked as NPA on 19.8.2014. If an account is declared as Non-Performing Asset, recovery of any interest or any kind of charge from that asset is not permissible in Law. In the instant case it is found that the recovery of interest or charge has been made showing it as debit amount in the respective column of statement of loan account since 19.9.2014 to 19.4.2016. This kind of recovery by the bank seems to be made in violation of legal norms and practices of the Bank. The Bank cannot recover any interest or charge from the complainant once the account is declared as NPA (Non Performing Asset). Recovery of interest /charge after declaring the loan account of the complainant as NPA also appears to be a gross deficiency in service on the part of the O.P Bank.
Now to see what relief or reliefs can be extended to the complainant in the facts and circumstances of the case. On perusal of the statement of account, it is found that on 18.4.2016 Rs.22,621/- was due to the bank from the complainant. The bank has realized Rs.46,499/- on liquidation of LIC policy of the complainant. So, Rs. 22,621/- is tobe deducted from the LIC proceeds and on such deduction, there remains Rs.23,878/- which amount should be given to the complainant by the bank. In addition to the said sum, the bank ,O.P-1 , will have to pay back Rs.1000/- which they have received in two instalments of Rs.500/- each on 23.5.2016 and 18.8.2016 , from the complainant vide the loan account statement. But the Bank has given the complainant only Rs.20,227/- and the complainant is still entitled to get Rs.4,651/- from the Bank i.e O.P-1. That apart, the bank will have to pay compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service on their part. Regards being had to all these, we are inclined to allow this case and the order is passed accordingly as hereunder.
There is no cause of action arising against O.P-2 and the complainant is not also the consumer of O.P-2 in so far as the facts and circumstances of the case is concerned. The case is , therefore, required to be dismissed against O.P-2.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against O.P-1 with a cost of Rs.10,000/- and dismissed exparte against O.P-2.
The O.P-1 is directed to pay Rs.4651/- to the complainant with interest @8% p.a from the date of liquidation of LIC Policy till full realization thereof.
The O.P-1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P-1 .
All the order should be complied with within a month of this order, failing which the amounts of cost and compensation will bear interest @8% p.a till full realization thereof.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
