Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/560/2017

Ajay Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Authorized Officer/Chief Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

M.L. Gaur

01 Jun 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/560/2017
Date of Institution	:	28/07/2017
Date of Decision	:	01/06/2018

 

Ajay Gupta son of Shri K.L. Gupta, R/o H.No.212, Sector 19-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

[1]     Authorized Officer/ Chief Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Office, Sector 19-D, Address: SCF 3, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.

 

[2]     Cluster Head, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Resolution, Recovery and Law Chandigarh, SCO 60-61, 3^rd Floor, Sec.17-B, Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. M.L. Gaur, Counsel for Complainant.
		Sh. Vivek Dawar, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

1.         Shri Ajay Gupta, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Authorized Officer/Chief Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce and Another (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he had taken a car loan of Rs.5.50 lacs repayable in 60 monthly installments of Rs.11,905/- p.m. @ 11.75% p.a. with monthly rest (Sanction letter Annexure A-1). Loan installments of Rs.12,000/- p.m. was recovered by the OP-Bank beginning 13.06.2011 till 12.05.2016 (60 months – Loan Statement Annexure A-7). It has been alleged that the Bank declared the car loan account Non-Performing Assets (NPS) on 30.07.2016 without any intimation and issued demand notice on 23.10.2016 (Annexure A-9). During visit to get NOC from the Bank, the Complainant was informed that some amount is still outstanding in the car loan account. Complainant wrote a letter on 12.09.2016 as to why the amount is outstanding despite payment of 60 monthly installments. Letter was never replied. It has been further alleged that the OP-Bank spoiled CIBIL record of the Complainant by declaring him as a defaulter. The Complainant came to know this fact when he applied for personal loan to Bank of Baroda, Sector 26, Chandigarh (Annexure A-14). The Complainant claims that the Bank has wrongly classified the account as NPA and therefore guilty of violating the RBI Guidelines (Annexure A-15). With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties filed reply, inter alia, pleading that a car loan of Rs.5.50 lacs was sanctioned to the Complainant vide sanction letter dated 04.05.2011 vide Annexure A-1 for purchase of Honda Car which was to be repaid in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.11,905/- commencing from next month after first disbursement with rate of interest @11.75% with monthly rest however as per the Agreement, the rate of interest was wrongly written as 12.75% and inadvertently charged on same rate, but the said difference of 0.50% was refunded to the Complainant on 04.11.2016. The Complainant was depositing the EMI of Rs.12,000/- in said car loan.  After depositing the 60^th installment on 12.05.2015, the Bank official had verbally informed the Complainant regarding pending dues on account of increased rate of interest, but the Complainant never deposited the same and as such, the loan account of the Complainant was declared as NPA on 30.07.2016 and not on 26.10.2016 as alleged. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
7.         It is evident from Annexure A-1 that the Complainant was sanctioned a loan of R.5.50 lacs @ 11.75% p.a. with monthly installments of Rs.11,905/- p.m. for 60 months. It is also evident as per page 54 of the paper-book that sufficient balance was there in the bank account of the Complainant when the last i.e. 60^th installment was recovered by the Opposite Parties on 12.05.2016.
8.         As per the case of the Complainant, when the Opposite Parties informed that still some balance is outstanding, the Complainant wrote a letter (Annexure A-8) dated 9.9.2016 to enquire about the same, which was never replied by the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, on 26.10.2016 (Annexure A-9) the OP-Bank issued demand notice and informed the Complainant that his account has already been declared as NPA on 30.07.2016. Thereafter, protracted correspondence was exchanged between the Complainant and OP-Bank and eventually, the OP-Bank admitted that it wrongly charged .5% excess interest and therefore an amount of Rs.8453.10P was refunded in the loan account of the Complainant. It has been further alleged and evident from Annexure A-14 (pg. 81 of the paper-book) that the Complainant’s account was declared as NPA and therefore, his CIBIL record was spoiled.
9.         The stand taken by the Opposite Parties in their written statement is that the Complainant was orally informed about the payable outstanding amount pending in his loan account and it was the Complainant only who did not pay any heed to the information given by the Bank regarding the same and therefore due to delay on the part of the Complainant in depositing the outstanding amount, his account was declared as NPA.
10.         Per pleadings of the parties, it is evident that the Opposite Parties came to know of their mistake of collecting the excess amount from the Complainant and after checking their record, they refunded the excess amount deducted by them to the Complainant. We are of the opinion if after taking the follow-up of the matter of excess charging from the Complainant, the Opposite Parties could refund the same, then why Opposite Parties could not inform the Complainant regarding the due balance to be paid by him at any stage. No doubt, it is the right of the Bank to recover any amount which is payable by the borrower, but it is also a matter of fact that in view of the provisions of the guidelines of the RBI (Annexure A-15), the Complainant was entitled to be informed and any doubt or dispute was to be settled between the Creditor and the Borrower through any specific internal channel within one month from the date on which the account of the Complainant would have been classified as NPA. Even if there was no internal channel to settle such dispute/doubt, the Complainant was entitled to be informed and to get an opportunity to explain or represent against the intended classification of his account as NPA.  
11.         In the backdrop of aforesaid,  we are of the considered opinion that it was unethical on the part of the Opposite Parties which are care-taker of the public money to plead that they had verbally informed the Complainant about the outstanding amount pending in his loan account due to change of interest from time to time. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Parties for non-apprising the Complainant of his due amount and declaring his account as NPA without giving him any kind of notice before hand is itself deficiency in service on their part especially when the Complainant is not a defaulter of even a single installment which he needed to pay back to the Opposite Parties as per the Agreement.  
12.         Sending the name of Complainant to CIBIL, publicizing his name as a defaulter in the record maintained by the CIBIL is nothing, but a sheer high headedness on the part of OP Bank. All this had not only maligned, but also tarnished the image of the Complainant, which is apparent from the fact, that when he applied for a loan from Bank of Baroda, the same was declined due to mentioning of his name by the Opposite Parties in the list of defaulters maintained by CIBIL. Such type of arm twisting tactics adopted by OP Bank, without any fault on the part of Complainant, is nothing, but indulgence in unfair trade practice.
13.         In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

 

[a]    To get the name of the Complainant removed from the CIBIL records.

[b]    To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[c]    To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

14.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b]& [c] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from complying with the directions as contained in sub-para [a] above. 
15.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
01/06/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”