DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/43/2020

Date of Institution : 04.02.2020

Date of Decision : 15.09.2020

Naresh Kumar son of Shri Dev Raj resident of House No. B-XI/2664, Ram Bagh Road, Street No. 1, Barnala-148101, Punjab.        …Complainant

Versus

1. Andhra Bank, Head Office 5-9-11, Dr. Pattabhi Bhavan, Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500004, Telangana through its Managing Director.

2. Andhra Bank Branch KC Road, Barnala through its Branch Manager.

…Opposite Parties 

Complaint Under Consumer Protection Act.

Present: Sh. Iqbal Singh counsel for complainant. 

Sh. Vinod Kumar Goyal counsel for opposite parties.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

    The complainant namely Naresh Kumar has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act (as amended up to date)  against Andhra Bank, Hyderabad and another. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant alongwith his daughter has availed an Education loan of Rs. 2,03,000/- from the opposite parties which was to be repaid by the complainant on getting the job by his daughter after completing her education which she do not get till now. 

3. It is further alleged that in the month of May 2019 the complainant availed a loan of Rs. 5 lacs from Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. Vide agreement dated 20.5.2019 and paid Rs. 15,267/- only on account of installment due as on 5.6.2019 alongwith Rs. 75/- on account of overdue interest. The amount of Rs. 5 lacs was disbursed to the complainant in his bank account with the opposite party No. 2. The education loan is repayable by the daughter of the complainant after she gets appointment. The opposite parties have deducted an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- out of the said disbursed amount which was deposited in the bank account of the complainant with the opposite party bank. Thereafter, the complainant many times requested the opposite parties to not to refused to advance any loan to the complainant on the basis of taking loan from other financial institution and to advance the complainant the loan amount applied by the complainant but the opposite parties linger on the matter. Then the complainant got served a legal notice dated 20.12.2019 sent on 23.12.2019 but to no effect. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite party may be directed to not to refuse to advance any loan to the complainant on the basis of taking loan from other finanacial institution and to advance the complainant the loan amount applied by the complainant.      

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension  and harassment.             

3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other relief to the Forum deem fit.  

4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties filed written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds that complaint is not maintainable, not within limitation, not came with clean hand and complainant is defaulter of the bank. 

5. On merits, it is admitted that complainant availed education loan of Rs. 2,03,100/- on 31.10.2014 to complete MCA of his daughter. Complainant till completion had to pay interest to keep said education loand account regular. Repayment of education loan was to start after six months on getting job after completion of MCA or to start after one year from completion of MCA, repayment of principal and interest in regular monthly installments till adjustment of education loan account within three years. Complainant/father was to pay interest till completion of MCA. Priyanka Garg completed her MCA but complainant had not paid any amount from interest or principal till completion. Said education loan because of non payment had become defaulter/NPA as per RBI guidelines. The said education loan account was overdue by Rs. 1,40,100/- and same was linked with another account and said account had shown credit balance of Rs. 4,80,082/- so computer deducted the overdue amount of Rs. 1,40,100/- from the said credit balance and transferred the same to education loan account. Complainant cannot raised any objection under Clause 17 of Composite Loan Agreement. Complainant or student did not pay any amount from principal or interest till completion and after completion of MCA till filing of complaint. Complainant and Priyanka Garg are defaulters of bank and their account is declared NPA. Opposite parties under Clause 17 of Composite Loan Agreement are authorized to deduct overdue amount from linked account and transfer to education loan account. Complainant till today not paid any amount from principal or interest except said transfer. Priyanka Garg as per letter dated 29.5.2019 completed her MCA but did not deposit any amount from principal or interest. Complainant never approached for further advancement nor was refused. Complainant being defaulter and NPA reflected in CIBIL, Bank as per RBI guidelines has no authority to advance loan to defaulters. Education loan account is NPA/ defaulter. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

6. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Naresh Kumar Ex.C-1, copy of legal notice Ex.C-2, copy of passbook Ex.C-3, postal receipts Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 and closed the  evidence.   

7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Manmohan Dixit Ex.OP-1.2/1, copy of letter dated 31.10.2014 Ex.OP-1.2/2, copy of letter of sanction Ex.OP-1.2/3, copy of composite agreement Ex.OP-1.2/4, copy of account statement of savings Ex.OP-1.2/5, copy of statement of loan account Ex.OP-1.2/6, copy of letter dated 29.5.2019 Ex.OP-1.2/7, copy of report of CIBIL Ex.OP-1.2/8,  reply of legal notice dated 15.1.2020 Ex.OP-1.2/9, postal receipts Ex.OP-1.2/10 and Ex.OP-1.2/11, legal notice dated 20.12.2019 Ex.OP-1.2/12 and closed the evidence. 

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 

9. It is admitted fact between the parties that complainant alongwith his daughter Priyanka Garg has availed an education loan of Rs. 2,03,100/- sanctioned from the opposite party vide letter of sanction Ex.OP-1.2/3. It is also not denied by both the parties that repayment of education loan was to start after six months on getting job after completion of MCA or to start after one year from completion of MCA. It is admitted fact between the parties that Priyanka Garg completed her MCA which is duly proved vide her letter Ex.OP-1.2/7. 

10. It is proved on the file that vide statement of loan account No. 196230100000894 Ex.OP-1.2/6 that they never paid any amount till 29.6.2019 except Rs. 1,500/- on 25.3.2015. It is admitted fact between the parties that on 17.7.2019 the bank has recovered the overdue amount of Rs. 1,40,100/- from the other Account of the complainant bearing No. 196210100031593 which also proved from the statement of account Ex.OP-1.2/5 and Ex.OP-1.2/6. 

11. Now the main question before us whether the bank can recover this amount from the other account of the complainant or not ?

12. For this purpose we have perused the composite agreement Ex.OP-1.2/4 between both the parties which is duly signed by the complainant and his daughter Priyanka Garg and binding upon them. 

13. Clause (48) of this composite agreement is as under.-

“(48) The Borrower(s) further agree(s) that in addition to any general lien or similar right to which the bank may be entitled by law the bank may at any time and without notice to borrower (s) combine or consolidate all or any of the Borrower(s) account (s) and set off or transfer any sum or sums standing to the credit of any one or more of such accounts in or towards satisfaction of any of borrower(s) liabilities to the Bank on any other account or any other respect, whether such liabilities be actual or contingent, primary or collateral and several or joint.”

This agreement is duly signed by the complainant and his daughter so this clause is also binding upon them. In this way, the bank recovered the overdue amount of education loan of Rs. 1,40,100/- from the account of the complainant under this clause, which in our view is not a deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. Further, to advance a loan to any person is a prerogative right of the bank and we cannot direct a bank to give loan to some person. 

14. As a result of our above discussion, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and complaint is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        15th Day of September 2020

 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President

              

(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member