DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _481 _ OF ___2014
DATE OF FILING : 24.9.2014 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: _11.7.2018_
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Sri Chanchal Kr. Bag, son of Sri Chinmoy Kr. Bag of 10/99/2, Bijoygarh Abasan, 1st floor, P.O Regent Estate, P.S Jadavpur, Kolkata -92 and permanently residing at Village Kinkarbati, P.O Kinkarbati, District-Hooghly.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. The Regional Manager (R.T.I), State Bank of India, at 6, Jeevandeep Building, 5th floor, Kolkata – 81, P.S Park Street.
2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Regent Estate Branch, at Regent Estate (4774), Kolkata – 32, P.S Jadavpur.
_______________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Once this case was decreed in favour of the complainant and appeal being FA no.A/637/2015 was preferred against the judgment of this Forum and the Hon’ble State Commission has been pleased to remand back the case to this Forum for fresh adjudication with liberty given to the O.P to file undisputed evidence before this Forum.
Facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.
The complainant took a Home Loan of Rs.3,60,000/- on 12.12.2003 from the O.P-2 ,having made security deposit of six numbers of NSC ( National Savings Certificate) . Loan was ultimately repaid by the complainant with accrued interest on 5.11.2011. Still, the NSCs were not returned to the complainant by the Bank i.e O.P-2. Therefore, the complainant prays for return of NSCs , compensation etc. Hence, this case.
No written version of the statement of the Bank is filed herein. But evidence has been filed in concordant with the order of the Appellant Forum.
Upon the averments of the parties following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Are the O.Ps liable for 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 filed by the complainant and O.Ps, which are kept in the record for consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :
It is the only grievance of the complainant in this case that the NSCs which were deposited by him with the O.P Bank while taking a Home Loan have not been returned to him by the said Bank , even though the loan amount has been liquidated with interest accrued thereon.
The version of the O.P Bank, as is gathered from the evidence filed by them , is that the NSCs have been encashed and the maturity value of three NSCs has been adjusted with the loan amount of the complainant maintained with the O.P Bank. In the contest of the claim and counter claim of the parties, it is to be seen whether the grievance of the complainant is at all tenable in Law . In other words, it is to be seen whether the O.P Bank has committed any act of deficiency in service by not crediting the entire amount of all NSCs to the account of the complainant.
It transpires from the record that the complainant deposited six NSCs in the O.P Bank at the time of taking home loan from the Bank. The 6 NSCs are : 1) Registration no. 4885 dated 24.11.2000, 2) 6862 dated 7.1.2003, 3) 6861 dated 7.1.2003 4) 5970(A) dated 9.1.2002, 5) 5980 dated 14.1.2002 6) 5973 dated 9.1.2002 of Rs.10,000/- each. The Bank has encashed all the NSCs. It transpires from the evidence of the Bank that the maturity value of Rs.43,590/- of NSC nos. 6861, 6862 and 4885 have been credited to SB Account of the complainant. The maturity value of the remaining three NSCs bearing no. 5970, 5980 and 5973 amounting to Rs.52,509/- has been adjusted with the loan account of the complainant ,maintained with the Bank. It has been argued on behalf of the complainant that the adjustment of the maturity value of NSCs with the loan account of the complainant is arbitrary and illegal as the Bank does not have any case that the complainant defaulted in payment of EMIs to the Bank. But the arguments canvassed on behalf of the complainant seems to have a considerable amount of substance . In the instant case, there is no allegation of the Bank that the complainant made default in payment of EMIs to the Bank . If there is non-payment of EMIs by the complainant, a considerable amount of money falls due to the bank as arrear and when such arrear amount becomes due to the bank, the bank can adjust any amount of the complainant with the said arrear. Question of adjustment of the money of the complainant with his loan account arises when the complainant is a defaulter in payment of EMIs to the Bank. In the instant case, it is the version of the complainant that he is not a defaulter in payment of loan to the Bank and that he has repaid the entire amount of loan with the accrued interest to the Bank. The bank does not say that the complainant is a defaulter in repayment of loan. Under such circumstances and in view of the facts and materials as transpiring from the record, we cannot understand why the bank has got the maturity value of three NSCs adjusted with the loan amount of the complainant. Is it for the reason that the money has come to their hand and therefore, it is to be pocketed?
That apart, the Bank should have filed a detailed statement of account of the complainant, showing what is due to them from the complainant and what is repaid by him by way of EMIs. There is no explanation given by the Bank as to why the maturity value of three NSCs amount of Rs.52,509/- is taken by the Bank by way of adjustment to the loan account of the complainant. The Bank is duty bound to give account of each and every paisa to the consumer and even to the Court of law. But they have not been able to furnish any explanation as to why the aforesaid adjustment has been made in the loan account of the complainant, especially when the complainant has liquidated the entire loan amount along with interest accrued thereon.
We do find that there is lack of transparency on the part of the O.P Bank and it seems that the Bank has behaved with an innocent consumer like shylock. Absence of any explanation much less any plausible explanation as to the adjustment of maturity value of 3 NSCs of the complainant is undoubtedly a deficiency in service on the part of the O.P Bank. It is not only a deficiency in service on the part of the O.P Bank but an instance of unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P Bank. Failure to file a detailed account about the money received by them from the complainant is another instance of deficiency in service on the part of the O.P Bank. The complainant is found to be made a victim of such deficiency in service on the part of the O.P Bank and complainant has certainly undergone tremendous harassment and mental agony due to the activities of the Bank .
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.Ps with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.
Both the O.Ps , who will remain jointly and severally liable, are directed to refund Rs.52,509/- i.e the maturity value of three NSCs ,which is adjusted to the loan account of the complainant by them, with interest @10% p.a from the date of receipt till its realization thereof ,within a month of this order.
The O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant.
They are further directed to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation for unfair trade practice adopted by them ,out of which Rs.30,000/- will be deposited in the Legal Aid Fund and rest amount will be given to the complainant.
All the amounts are to be paid within a month of this order, failing which the amounts of compensation and cost will bear interest @10% 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
