DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _229_ OF ___2015_
DATE OF FILING : 15.5.2015 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 14/06/2017
Present : President : Udayan Mukhopadhyay
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : 1. Akasranjan Baitalik, Jalalpur, P.O Falta, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-
743 504.
2. Archana Baitalik, wife of Akasranjan Baitalik, Jalalpur, P.O Falta, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin- 743 504.
-VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Punjab National Bank, Branch officeat Panna, Village Panna, P.O Panarhat & P.S Ramnagar, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743504.
2. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch officeat Panna, Village Panna, P.O Panarhat & P.S Ramnagar, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743504.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President
The application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant on the ground that complainant was a teacher ,now a retired person and the complainant no.2 is a housewife. O.P-1 is dealing with banking business through its branches spread all over India . It has further stated that complainant has hired the services of O.P by opening joint savings bank account being no. 2190000100043055 and 2190000100044416 which they used to maintain since long without any dispute and differences and they have paid service charges for the services rendered by the O.Ps by depositing their hard earn money in the said accounts and the O.Ps earn margin of interest from the amount kept in the account of the complainants . It has further stated that complainants approached the O.Ps to avail some financial assistance for construction of their house and after performing all formalities O.Ps granted loan to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs which was disbursed in two stages by depositing Rs.2,50,000/- on 9.5.2003 and Rs.2,50,000/- on 23.5.2003 respectively in the account of the complainant. It is to be mentioned here that at the time of sanction of the said loan complainant was asked to sign several documents which according to the O.Ps were necessary formalities to sanction the loan and complainant was asked to put signature leaving the relevant portion blank which was subsequently filled up by the Officer of the Bank and copies of documents were not supplied to the complainant, though complainant insisted to supply the same. It has also stated that at the time of sanction fo the loan O.Ps also made a demand to the complainants to deposit Fixed Deposit, LIC or NSC for collateral security against the said loan. Accordingly complainant deposited Deed of Conveyance being Deed no.2225 dated 30.5.1986 and assigned LIC Policy being no.412869804 in the name of the complainant having sum assured Rs.50,000/-. It has further stated that total amount has to be disbursed by 120 equal monthly installment of Rs.6250/- calculated on the basis of the fixed rate of interest. It has further stated that they used to maintain their account with sufficient balance to honour debit mandate and accordingly EMIs were automatically deducted from the account of the complainants and the passbook will speak for itself regarding the said loan transaction from July, 2003. It has claimed that despite of EMI payments made regularly the account shows increase in debit balance consistently and it went upto Rs.5,94,947/- . The statement of account shows deduction of EMI only from the month of June, 2006 though the EMIs were deducted right from the next month of sanction of the loan. It has alleged that sometimes in the month of March, 2010 an amount of Rs.27000/- was deducted from the joint accounts of the complainants without giving any intimation and without consent of complainants on account of recovery of the said loan. It has claimed that due to maintain of sufficient balance in the account no installment was unpaid for insufficient fund. Apart from that complainant has also paid a sum of Rs.87,500/- in cash when they have found that the O.Ps have started to play fraud by deducting amounts from another account of the complainant which was not at all assigned against the said loan. All the documents of EMI from Savings Bank Account are annexed herewith. It has alleged that without rectifying the irregularity in the statement of account for their own fault , the Chief Manager of the O.P-1 by writing a letter dated 29.5.2014 has informed the complainant that the loan account of the complainants was classified as NPA on 31.3.2013 ,however no details was provided regarding the amount paid towards principal, interest and other charges and the amount payable by the complainants towards discharge of the said loan account. So, it is necessary to mention that the alleged classification of account as NPA is illegal and in violation of RBI guidelines as the said loan was secured against the LIC policy having surrendered value of Rs.1,50,000/- which is the adequate margin available in the account and so the said account need not be treated as NPA in terms of the Master Circular ,guidelines of the RBI and the LIC policies were credited after the account was classified as NPA which is not at all permissible in Law. Moreover the alleged mortgage of the agricultural land by depositing title deed against the said loan is not permissible under the Law and the said property is not enforceable under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Accordingly it has prayed an order directing the O.P to return the police certificate, conveyance deed , to issue No Dues Certificate, to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lacs as compensation , to pay litigation cost Rs.50,000/-.
The O.Ps contested the case by filing written version and has denied all the allegations . Specifically their case is that the case is not maintainable in the present form and there is no deficiency in service on the aprt of the O.Ps as alleged, but admitted that complainant has taken loan which was disbursed in two phases namely on 9.5.2003 and 23.5.2003 through loan account no.PSHBL-1326 and the loan installments deposited by the complainants were duly credited to the loan account which is renumbered to 219000NC00013267 on conversion of the Bank’s Branch into CBS sometime in the month of June, 2008. It has claimed that the statement of account would reveal that all debit entries from 28.2.2006 and all credit entries from 30.3.2006 were uploaded individually therein. But the balancing figure of Rs.24,487/- in respect of all debit entries from 7.6.2003 to 31.1.2006 and all credit entries from 17.7.2003 to31.1.2006 were credited in the account. Thus, as on 31.5.2008 debit balance outstanding of both the statements are equal i.e Rs.4,03,385/- and therefore, the allegation of the complainants that all deposits were made by them are not reflected in the statement account is false . The O.P Bank submitted annexure A and B respectively and prays for dismissal of the case with exemplary cost.
Points for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps or not.
Decision with reasons
We have perused all the annexures filed by the parties ,specially annexure A and B, the loan account of the complainant issued by the O.P Bank ,from where we find that there are several unauthorized and illegal entries made in the said accounts which are ; on 7.6.2003 Rs.76/-, on 21.6.2003 Rs.3000/-, on 30.6.2003 Rs.500/- , on 31.12.2003 Rs.421/-, on 27.8.2004 Rs.1124/-, on 28.10.2004 Rs.3035/- and Rs.3135/- , on 1.12.2004 Rs.463/-, on 1.3.2005 Rs.2784/-, on 15.2.2005 Rs.3080, on 7.6.2006 Rs.300/-, on 5.1.2007 Rs.471/-, on 31.3.2007 Rs.100/-.
It appears further that in question no.7 to the questionnaires filed by the complainant regarding the entries as shown in the statement of account , the O.P intentionally neglected to explain the same and clearly avoiding the questions put by the complainant to the O.P. So, adverse inference should be taken against the O.Ps, particularly when if the answer was given, then it will definitely go against the O.Ps.
Thus on a moment scrutiny we find that adverse inference should be drawn for non-acceptance of the above queries by the complainant at the time of putting question no.7. It should be mentioned here that if the queries i.e piece of evidence which could be and is not produced, and if produced, would be unfavourable to the O.Ps who withhold it. Thus Section 114(g) of Evidence Act clearly attracts in this circumstances against the O.Ps.
Apart from that, there are so many irregularities which O.Ps failed to prove and it is interesting to point out that the value of the LIC policy being no.416277458 for a sum of Rs.1 ,10,000/- has been adjusted against repayment of the loan amount but failed to prove the same by the O.Ps. Moreover uniform rate of interest and no norms of the RBI is followed and instead of that highest rate of interest over the loan was charged which is unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.
The totality of the circumstances clearly suggests that O.Ps acted against the guidelines issued by the Government and O.Ps have failed to perform their duty as per the guideline and rules which for the time being is in force. So, the O.Ps made deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
It is true that O.ps tried to convince before this bench that they have published a notice under the SARFAISI Act by submitting one scrap of paper, but no notice was sent to the complainant under the said Act. Moreover, no averment was made in the written version even at the time of filing evidence and questionnaire by the O.Ps. Thus we find that complainant has been able to prove his case.
Accordingly, it is
Ordered
That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by the O.Ps to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.
The O.Ps are directed to return the original Deed of Conveyance being no.2225 dated 30.5.1986, original LIC policy being no. 412869804 in the name of the complainants to the complainants which are deposited as collateral security within 45 days from the date of this order.
The O.Ps are also directed to issue “No Due Certificate” with respect to the loan account no.219000NC00013267 within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which O.Ps are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs to the complainant for their suffering mental agony, harassment by not getting the policy certificate original deed of conveyance and “NO Due Certificate" due to their irregular statement in the loan account .
But the prayer for compensation of Rs.1000/- per day is refused.
The complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum after the stipulated period is over.
Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.
Member Member President
Dictated and corrected by me
President
The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
Ordered
That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by the O.Ps to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.
The O.Ps are directed to return the original Deed of Conveyance being no.2225 dated 30.5.1986, original LIC policy being no. 412869804 in the name of the complainants to the complainants which are deposited as collateral security within 45 days from the date of this order.
The O.Ps are also directed to issue “No Due Certificate” with respect to the loan account no.219000NC00013267 within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which O.Ps are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs to the complainant for their suffering mental agony, harassment by not getting the policy certificate original deed of conveyance and “NO Due Certificate" due to their irregular statement in the loan account .
But the prayer for compensation of Rs.1000/- per day is refused.
The complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum after the stipulated period is over.
Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.
Member Member President
