DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C. CASE NO. 425 OF 2013
DATE OF FILING: 21/09/2015 DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 25/10/2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member : Jagadish Ch. Barman
COMPLAINANT : 1. Sri Jayanta Saha, S/O – Late Hiralal Saha, 4/70, Bijoygarh, P.S. + P.O. - Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700 032.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. The Manager, State Bank of India, Regent Estate Branch, 2/10, Sree Colony, P.S. – Netaji Nagar, Kolkata – 700 092.
2. The Manager, State Bank of India, AMY, Parsudih Branch, Jamshedpur, Singbhum, Jharkhand – 831002.
__________________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Siphoning off Rs. 1,656/- from the account being no. 10208062627 of the complainant by O.P. no. 1 bank without his consent has galvanized the complainant to file the instant case against the O.P. banks alleging deficiency in service on their part.
Facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.
Complainant was once posted at Jamshedpur and there he took a personal loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from O.P. 2 bank on 19.05.2005. Loan was to be repaid by 48 monthly installments of Rs. 2,600/- each. All the 48 installments were paid by the complainant and last payment of Rs. 23,000/- was made by him on 11.11.2010 as full and final settlement as per instruction of O.P. no. 2. Thereafter, the complainant was transferred to Kolkata and his account was also transferred to O.P. no. 1 bank. O.P. 1 has unlawfully deducted Rs. 1,656/- from the account of the complainant and has also set hold Rs. 50,000/- of the said account. Now, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s, the complainant prays for return of Rs. 1,656/- to him, lifting of ban from his account and also for payment of compensation to him. Hence, this case.
Both the O.P.s have filed W/V separately to contest herein; but the context of their written version remain almost the same. According to them, the complainant took a personal loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from O.P. no. 2 bank and did not repay the loan in terms of the agreement. The said loan account shows standing amount of Rs. 17,518/- plus interest as on 17.07.2018. The account of the complainant is kept on hold by RACPC, Jamshedpur and not by O.P. no. 1. One money suit bearing no. 32 of 2016 is pending against the complainant before C.J, Junior Division, Jamshedpur. Loan account is declared as NPA as the complainant did not pay the installments of the loan. O.P. no. 1 is dragged unnecessarily into the vortex, as the said bank is not involved with the issue of personal loan to the complainant. There has been no “No objection certificate” issued by the bank in favour of the complainant. The complaint should be dismissed in limini with cost as there is no deficiency in service as alleged on the part of the O.P. banks.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service in so far as the repayment of loan by the complainant is concerned?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
The complainant, O.P. nos. 1 and 2 have filed evidence on affidavit. Questioners, replies and BNAs filed by the parties are kept in record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point nos. 1 & 2 :
It has been contended on behalf of the complainant that O.P. no. 2 cannot deduct Rs. 1,656/- from complainant’s account maintained with O.P. no. 1 bank. Such deduction from O.P. no. 1 bank is unauthorized deduction and therefore it is, as goes the submission, deficiency in service on the part of both the banks. Ld. Lawyer appearing for the O.P. banks has submitted that the O.P. banks are 2 branches of the same bank i.e. State Bank of India and it is RACPC, Jamshedpur who has deducted the said amount from O.P. no. 1 bank within its lawful competence.
We have to see now whether one branch of a bank can deduct any amount from the account of Loanee maintained with another branch of the same bank. In Syndicate Bank VS Vijay Kumar, (1992) 2 SCC 330, it is clearly held by the Apex Court that a bank has general lien over all forms of securities or negotiable instrument including FDRS in the ordinary course of banking business in the absence of agreement to the contrary. In a decision reported in VI (2006) CPJ 1 (NC) [M. Mallika VS SBI and another], the Hon’ble National Commission has also held that if any amount is due against the person in account of another branch, the bank can exercise its general lien over the title deed deposited in one branch in respect of loan in other branch.
This is the position of law on the subject and regard being had to the law of land as prevailing now, we are of the opinion that the O.P. banks are 2 branches of the same bank and this being so, O.P. no. 2 bank has lawful right to exercise his right of lien over the account of the complainant maintained with O.P. no. 1 bank. There is nothing unlawful done by O.P. no. 2 while deducting Rs. 1,656/-, if O.P. no. 2 is actually entitled to any payment from the complainant.
Now to see whether O.P. no. 2 bank is entitled to any dues from the complainant as yet. It is the version of the complainant that he has repaid all the 48 installments as laid down by O.P. no. 2 bank in connection with issue of personal loan to him. O.P. no. 2 bank also admits that 48 installments have been paid by the complainant towards the liquidation of loan taken by him, but such payment by the complainant has not ever been regular i.e. not in accordance with the terms of the agreement. It has further submitted on behalf of O.P. no. 2 bank that the dues of the bank from the complainant have been increased as the complainant has not paid the installments of loan in due time. In the context of submissions and counter submissions of the parties as referred to above, it is to be seen whether O.P. no. 2 bank has acted properly in terms of agreement. It is also to be seen whether the complainant has acted properly in repayment of installments of the loan. It is undisputed fact that the complainant authorized O.P. no. 2 bank to automatically deduct the installment amount month by month from his savings bank account bearing no. 10208062627, which is also his salary account. In the light of such authorization of the complainant, a heavy duty is cast upon O.P. no. 2 bank and O.P. no. 2 bank has an infallible obligation to deduct the installment amount from the account of the complainant. According to the version of O.P. no. 2 bank, there have been 14 lapses on the part of the complainant and the installment payment has not been made by the complainant month by month regularly. We have gone through the statement of the loan account no. 30006554722 of the complainant as well as his saving bank account which was maintained with O.P. no. 2 bank. 4 months’ lapses on the part of the complainant in payment of installment i.e. from 05.07.2005 to 01.11.2005 have been pointed out by O.P. no. 2. The perusal of pass book account of the complainant reveals that there was sufficient fund to pay EMI of Rs. 2,600/- in the account of the complainant. On 28.02.2006, one month’s lapse of complainant has also been pointed out. But, the pass book of the complainant shows that there was a balance of Rs. 17,924/- on 28.02.2016 in the account of the complainant. Another lapse of complainant for one month is pointed out to have taken place on 30.06.2006. But, the balance in the account of the complainant is seen to be Rs. 8156.07/- . We are not going to grope any more. One or two instances are sufficient to point out the negligent conduct of a person. All the 4 instances of alleged lapses on the part of the complainant may well be contributed to the negligence of O.P. no. 2 bank. O.P. no. 2 bank could have automatically deducted the installment amount from the account of the complainant, because it was his obligation to deduct the said installment from salary account of the complainant in terms of the agreement separately reached between the complainant and O.P. no. 2 bank. A copy of such agreement has also been filed on record by O.P. no. 2 bank. Now the question which arises for consideration is whether the complainant will have to bear the brunt of all negligence of O.P. no. 2 bank. Certainly not. No blame can be imposed upon the complainant for non-payment of installments within time. O.P. no. 2 bank may be held liable for such non-payment of installments by the complainant in due time.
That apart, a minute scrutiny of loan account documents of the complainant reveals that O.P. no. 2 bank has acted contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement. A copy of agreement styled “Arrangement letter” is filed on record by O.P. no. 2 bank. Both the parties will have to abide by the terms and conditions of this arrangement letter. We know very well that the bank demands compound interest in case of loan to the customers. In the arrangement letter, it is stated thus, “the current effective rate being 10.2% with “quarterly rest”. Interest can be charged by the bank on “quarterly rest” as goes the terms of arrangement letter. “Quarterly rest” means interest will be added to reduced principal amount after a quarter. In case of such kind of loan, interest is added to the reduced principal amount quarter by quarter. But, on perusal of the copy of loan account of the complainant which is filed on record by O.P. no. 2 bank, it is found that the interest has been added to principal amount month by month. Such addition of interest month by month is a clear violation of the terms of the agreement and such violation is committed by none but O.P. no. 2 bank. O.P. no. 2 bank is defaulter in the terms of agreement and therefore it is guilty of deficiency in service. The calculation of its loan account is not clear and transparent and no prudent person will be able to say how much O.P. no. 2 bank is further entitled to get in that loan account. According to O.P. no. 2 bank the outstanding amount in the said loan account of the complainant was Rs. 17,518/- as on 11.11.2010. But, having taken into consideration the violation of the terms of the agreement by O.P. no. 2 bank as pointed out above, we are inclined to draw an adverse inference against O.P. no. 2 bank and we do feel no pain to say O.P. no. 2 bank is not entitled to get any amount from the complainant as outstanding amount on 11.11.2010.
O.P. no. 2 bank has also charged interest against the complainant after the institution of this case. The case is pending since 2015. Once the case was decided to proceed ex-parte against O.P. no. 2 bank, when O.P. no. 2 bank moved the State Commission and thereafter he was allowed to contest this case by Hon’ble State Commission. In this way, many years have passed away in pendency of this case and the complainant has suffered a lot of hardships therefor. Regard being had to this aspect in particular, we are of the opinion that O.P. no. 2 bank is not entitled to demand any pendent lite interest from the complainant.
Upon what have been discussed above, complainant is deemed entitled to relief and the reliefs are granted accordingly as hereunder.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.P.s with a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
Both the O.P.s are directed as follows:
- To return Rs. 1,656/- to the account of the complainant by O.P.s;
- To withdraw the ban i.e. set-hold on Rs. 50,000/- imposed by the O.P. banks in respect of the account of the complainant;
- The O.P. banks are directed not to recover any sum of money from the complainant in respect of his loan account.
- To issue “No objection certificate” to the complainant in respect of his loan account.
As the complainant gets some remission in payment of dues of the bank, he is not awarded any compensation from the O.P. banks. The O.P. banks are directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within a month of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this award through the instrumentality of this forum.
Register-in-charge is directed to supply a free certified copy of this judgment at once to the parties concerned.
I/We agree, Member President
Directed and corrected by me
President
