Sri G.N. Jena, President-This is a complaint U/s.12 of C.P.Act-1986 filed by the complainant for a direction to Ops to release the fixed MIC of Rs.4,50,000/- and adjust the outstanding loan amount through the MIC and refund the balance amount with Rs.40,000/- compensation for mental agony along with Rs. 10,000/- for cost of litigation expenses.
The brief facts of the case are that complainant is a consumer of Op’s Bank and had deposited a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- in shape of MIC bearing No. 005445 on 13.03.2001 at Sunabeda Branch in the District of Koraput with monthly interest of Rs.3,718.00 per annum and the date of maturity of MIC was 08.03.2006 and the said MIC was transferred from Sunabeda Branch to Keonjhar Branch accordingly Keonjhar Branch opened one SB A/C in favour of the complainant bearing No.13685 and against this MIC complainant had availed a loan of Rs.3,26,583/- in two phase i.e. Rs.2,01,583/- on 07.11.2002 and Rs.1,25000/- on 17.08.2005 and had paid Rs.1,29,000/- towards the loan account but the Ops Bank issued a notice on 10.05.13 asking an arbitrary amount of Rs.3,36,857/- against his loan account and despite legal notice Bank did not adjust the actual dues of the loan and not refunded the balance amount against the MIC and illegally seized the SB A/C of the complainant resulting mental agony and financial loss and hence this complaint-
In support filed
1. Xerox copy of MIC certificate
2. Xerox copy of 11 nos. of Money receipts
3. Legal notice dt.19.06.2013 addressed to Op.1
4. Xerox copy of Demand notice of Op dt.10.05.2013
5. Xerox copy of Acknowledgement receipts 2 nos.
6. Xerox copy of SB A/C of the complainant
After service of notice Ops filed version through their engaged counsel stating that the case is not maintainable as there is no cause of action and admitted regarding issuance of notice demanding to Rs. 3,36,857/- and due to non- payment of loan amount these Ops have seized the SB A/C of the complainant and further stated that the loan amount of Rs.3,26,583/- on two occasions against MIC creeps to Rs. 4,45,631/- on 25.11.2006 and when loan amount exceeded to Rs.8,00,000/- the MIC amount of Rs.4,50,000/- adjusted to Loan Account of the complainant on 26.03.2012 and presently the loan amount of the complainant is Rs.8,79,600/- as on 15.04.2014 and out of which the total amount of Rs.5,10,517/- was credited to the Loan A/C of the complainant and an amounting Rs.3,69,082/- is still remaining outstanding against the loan account of the complainant and hence these Ops are not liable for any deficiency of service and prayed to dismiss the case against these Ops with cost.
In support filed
1. Xerox copy of Statement of account of Loan A/C- LN 20165- 7 sheets
2. Application cum Proposal form- 2 sheets
L.-434, 435, 447, 8PM 400 total- 6 sheets
Heard the learned counsels for the contesting parties and gone through the material available on records.
It is not dispute that complainant had availed a loan amounting to Rs.3,26,538/- /- in two occasions against the MIC amounting to Rs. 4, 50,000/- i.e. Rs.2, 01,583/-on 07.11.2002 and later Rs.1,25,000/- on 17.08.2005. The only question is that whether the demand of Rs.3,36,857 against the complainant’s Loan A/C is genuine and if not what relief can be granted.
In this point learned counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant has availed Rs.3,26,538/- towards loan against the MIC amounting to Rs.4,50,000/- and leaving the MIC amount has already been paid Rs.1,29,000/- hence further claim of amount and seizure of SB A/C for non-payment of such arbitrary amount is illegal and unjust and hence Op Bank is liable for the same.
On other hand learned counsel for the complainant vehemently objected on the submission of the complainant and further submitted that the complainant is a chronic defaulter and not paid the loan amount as a result it creeps to Rs.8,79,600/- as on 15.04.2014 for which the Op Bank complied to adjust the MIC amount towards loan account of the complainant and after adjustment of MIC amount balance Rs.3,69,082/- is pending due against the complainant resulting seizure of the SB A/C of the complainant and for such these Ops cannot be liable for any deficiency of service.
On perusal of statement of account filed by the Ops it is seen that on the first phase loan i.e. Rs.2,01,583/- disbursed on 07.11.2002, the running outstanding balance is Rs.2,75,363/- and again on 19.09.2005 complainant received 2nd phase loan amounting to Rs.1,25,000/- as such the running balance as on that dated was Rs.4,00,336/- and the Op adjusted the entire amount of MIC i.e. Rs.4,50,000/- against the loan amount on 26.03.12 and till that date complainant in total has paid Rs.5,07,209.40 against his loan.
On further perusal it is seen that the period of maturity date of the alleged MIC amounting to Rs.4,50,000/- was on 08.03.2006 and till 08.03.2006 the running balance of loan outstanding was Rs.4,27,362/- but the Ops without adjusting the amount slept over the matter till another 6 years and on 26.03.2012 adjusted the entire matured amount of the complainant towards the loan account and apart from that the monthly interests from the MIC are also adjusted and a total Rs.5,07,209.40 has been adjusted towards the loan account. If the Ops would have adjusted the amount in due time i.e. after maturity date of MIC with notice to complainant then complainant might have got refunded amount about Rs.23,000/- after adjustment but the Op Bank slept over the matter for further 6 years and when the amount exceeds than the MIC amounts adjusted the same and asking further amount from the complainant which is in our view illegal and unjust.
Under these facts and circumstances we feel it reasonable to direct the Ops to close the loan account of the complainant and not to claim any further amount from the complainant against the loan account as he has already been paid Rs.1, 20,000/- from 15.1.03 to 19.09.05 and Rs.5, 10,517.40 from 19.09.05 to till 27.03.2014 and in total Rs.6, 30,517.40 against his loan and release the Pass Book of the complainant immediately for his transaction.
No order as against cost and compensation.
The case is accordingly disposed of.
