DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.459/2008
Mrs. Saroj Sharma
W/o Shri Mangat Ram Sharma
R/o E-2/70, Sector-16, Rohini
Delhi-110085 ….Complainant
Versus
Allahabad Bank
through its Managing Director
MCAA, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi-110024 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 14.07.08 Date of Order : 26.08.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Sh. S. S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
S. S. Fonia, Member
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that he was sanctioned a home loan amounting to Rs.8,02,599/- by the OP on 29.12.2006 vide loan account No.LN19357. The interest chargeable was 8.25% with duly payable EMIs of Rs.8300/- per month. The Complainant states that she had regularly and consecutively paid 15 installments to the OP for Rs.8,300/- totaling to Rs.1,24,500/-. The Complainant alleges that in the month of February, 2007 OP had cleared the loan amount on 08.02.07 and immediately thereafter on 10.02.07, a first cheque of EMI was sent for encashment just after two days from the day of loan granted and the cheque was encashed from the account of Complainant on 13.02.2007. The cheques were blank given by the Complainant to the OP. Again another cheque was sent for encashment by the OP on 22.02.2007 and the same was returned unpaid on account of the reasons that the Complainant was not liable to pay more than one EMI in a month but despite that the OP had deducted amount of interest, cheque return charges, legal audit charges, interest application charges and other charges as desired by them in every month. Alleging illegal act on the part of the OP the Complainant further states that in the month of March, 2007 two EMIs cheques were presented by the OP out of which one cheque was cleared under the liability of the Complainant and another one was dishonoured as the Complainant was not liable to pay more than one EMI in a month. Again in April 2007, four EMIs cheques were presented by the OP out of which one cheque was cleared under the liability of the Complainant and other were dishonored as the Complainant was not liable to pay more than one EMI in a month. The Complainant further alleges that in every month the OP had sent two EMIs cheques for encashment in the bank of Complainant intentionally, deliberately and willfully to grab the money of the Complainant fraudulently. The Complainant further states that she had regularly paid 15 installments till date for Rs.8300/- per installment totaling to Rs.1,24,5000/- and even thereafter her account is credited for Rs.13,558/- instead of Rs.1,24,500/-. As per balance as on 13.05.08 the amount debited was 7,89,041/- against the actual amount payable by the Complainant for Rs.6,78,099/-. Being an illiterate lady she does not understood the language of accounting done by the OP and therefore she states that she was shocked to know that her cheques were dishonouring every month leading to mental and physical torture by the OP and ultimately she was compelled to be admitted in the hospital and had to pay huge amount for her treatment and continues to be under treatment for deficiency in service and illegal threats of the OP. The Complainant had served a legal notice upon the OP which is alleged to have not been replied by the OP. Feeling aggrieved with the conduct of the OP she has moved this Forum with the following prayers:-
- Direct the OP to credit the account of the Complainant for Rs.1,10,942/-.
- Direct the OP to pay interest @ 12% per annum since February, 2007.
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.5 lacs as compensation and litigation charges to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.
The OP has filed written statement denying all the allegations and specifically made the averments that the complaint is based on false and concocted facts and without disclosing any cause of action against the OP. The OP has alleged that the Complainant has attempted to recover her medical treatment payments which appear to be fake and false by way of this complaint. It is “submitted that the complainant executed various documents and acknowledged the sanction letter containing terms and conditions, for valuable consideration of loan which was duly availed by the complainant. Hence, any charges such as check return charges, levy of interest and legal audit etc. have been levied either under those mandatory regulations or under the agreement created between the parties.” The OP has submitted that the rate of interest agreed between the parties was not fixed but was floating as per the guidelines of RBI issued from time to time and therefore basis of 8.25% interest per annum alleged by the Complainant is denied. The OP has further denied of handing over of any blank cheque to them. OP has made a general statement that there is no rule or law that the Complainant shall make only one installment in a month and also the OP Bank shall not receive more than one installment in a month. “It is always a sweet will of the borrower to repay/mitigate the loan outstanding due to the bank as soon as possible and such sooner payments are welcomed by the bank.” The OP further blames the Complainant for her failure to maintain the required balance to honour the cheques and now with a view to recover her irrelevant medical dues/payments the Complainant has filed this false and frivolous complaint. The OP has stated that in the month of March only one cheque was presented by them as per instruction of the Complainant and the same was cleared on 12.03.2007. As per the statement of the account filed by the Complainant she has paid only 14 installments till 18.05.08 and not 15 installments as alleged by the Complainant. The OP has further made averments that the Complainant having paid Rs.1,24,500/- till 18.05.08 is seeking to debit the amount of Rs.1,24,500/- without calculating the interest thereon for that period. The Complainant after deducting interest part till 18.05.08 was liable to pay Rs.7,89,041/- as reflected in her statement of account and hence the calculations made by the Complainant are self assumed, wrong and denied. The OP has vehemently denied the Complainant being illiterate lady and any mental and physical torture is led to her hospitalization and expenses thereof. The medical documents filed by the Complainant are alleged to be false, fake and forged which have no relevance and bearing on the case. As regards issue of legal notice the Complainant has put on record the reply given to the notice wherein detailed reply has been furnished to the Advocate of the Complainant with further advice to accept the genuine grievance, if any. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP reiterating the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. Suresh Thakur, Chief Manager has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have examined the material placed before us very carefully and dispassionately.
Now we straightaway come to the question, whether the relief prayed for is admissible to the Complainant or not?
Admittedly the Complainant was sanctioned a home loan of Rs.8,02,599/- on 29.12.2006. As per the documents on record the said home loan was based on floating rate of interest at 2.25% less PLR. The Complainant has acknowledged the terms and conditions of the said loan vide acknowledgment letter dated 29.12.2006. We have been able to lay our hand on statement of account bearing No.LN19537 issued by the OP Bank on 13.05.2008 wherein the Complainant has cleared 19 EMIs of Rs.8300/- on various dates commencing from 13.02.07 to 08.05.08. Therefore, after paying a sum of Rs.1,57,700/- net balance of Rs.7,89,041/- is shown as DR against the Complainant. This is a computer generated account of the OP. We mark it as Mark ‘A’ for the purposes of identification. This document does neither support the case of the Complainant nor of the OP. According to the Complainant she had paid 15 installments till 08.05.08 while, on the other hand, according to OP Complainant had paid only 14 installments. Document Mark A is saying a different story. A man can lie but not the document. The amount of Rs.789041/- as on 08.05.08 has been shown inclusive of interest. In absence of any counter statement of the account by the Complainant, we are not inclined to accept any bald statement from the Complainant. Therefore, allegations of discrepancy in the account by the Complainant do not hold good. We are surprised to note that the Complainant has paid only 19 EMIs leaving many more EMIS to be paid against the home loan and at this stage the Complainant has made allegations of mental and physical torture resulting into her admission in hospital and huge expenditure for her treatment. By any stretch of imagination such discrepancy in the home loan account cannot be juxtaposed with illness of any prudent human being. Had it been a simple complaint of excess recovery of dues by the OP Bank, we could have looked into the complaint but with such a motive of fixing a nexus with so called ailment leading to hospitalization and huge expenditure, we can only draw an inference that the complaint is made with malafide intention to extract huge amount of money from the OP who is otherwise subject to scrutiny of many banking authorities.
Viewed from above background we hold the complaint as vexatious and accordingly dismiss the same with cost of Rs.5,000/- payable by the Complainant to the OP.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(S. S. Fonia) (Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member Member President
Announced on 26.08.2016.
