This is a petition / complaint filed U/s 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The case of the petitioner is that She obtained a loan of Rs.80,000/- on 26/07/2017 from the O.P.No-1 maintaining all formalities of the bank vide A/c No:5225300019479 & deposited a Reinvestment Plan Certificate of Rs.40,000/- as security. She regularly paid the loan installment as fixed by the bank till November 2018 without default and she never received any notice/demand notice regarding irregularity of repayment of the loan. That when she deposited the loan installment for the month of January, 2019 and obtained a statement of account surprisingly she found that the Re-investment Plan Certificate amount of Rs.50,377/- was adjusted with the loan on 02/01/2019 and the outstanding balance shows Rs.12,341.40/-. On being asked why without giving any information and without her consent it was adjusted the O.P.No-1 failed to give any reasoned reply. She time to time visited the office of O.P.No-1 and requested to issue new Re-investment Plan Certificate of the adjusted sum but did not get any fruitful result. The O.Ps made unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint for an order to re-issue the Re-investment Plan Certificate of present value, Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost.
O.P.No-1 & 2 contested the case by filing written version admitting the fact of taking loan by the complainant stating that the beginning the petitioner failed to repay the loan interest regularly and in the year 2019 the O.P verbally suggested her to pay regular E.M.I for avoiding litigation as default borrower and realizing the benefit the petitioner decided to adjust the security amount with loan and the O.P adjusted the same on her verbal consent and there is no negligence or deficiency of service. They are praying for dismissal of the case.
The point for consideration is:-
- Whether there was any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps causing loss to the petitioners and / or thereby the petitioner may get relief as prayed for?
D e c i s i o n W i t h R e a s o n s
Admittedly, the petitioner / complainant took a loan of Rs.80,000/- on 26.07.2017 from Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Hemtabad Branch vide Loan A/c No:5225300019479 and agreed to repay the loan amount and interest regularly as per terms and conditions of the bank and a Re-investment Plan Certificate amounting to Rs.40,000/- dated 13.10.2015 of same branch of the bank was deposited as collateral security to be matured on 13.10.2018 with maturity value Rs.49,989/-
The petitioner stated that she regularly paid the loan installment amount as fixed by the bank till November, 2018 but statement of account (computer generated dated 05.02.2019) for the period from 21.09.2017 to 04.02.2019 shows that the petitioner failed to repay the loan interest regularly, rather she deposited the interest at interval and as on December, 2018 Rs.64,718.40/- was balance.
Admittedly, on 02 January, 2019 maturity value of Re-investment Plan of Rs.50,377/- was adjusted against said balance of the loan account and balance shown Rs.14,341.40/- and thereafter she deposited Rs.2,000/- on 30 January, 2019 and balance shown Rs.12,341.40/-.
The dispute rests on one point whether or not the maturity value of Re-investment Plan Certificate has been adjusted against balance of the loan without giving any intimation to her or with her consent. The O.Ps replied that they verbally suggested her to pay regular E.M.I for avoiding litigation as default borrower and after consulting with the O.Ps and realizing the benefit the petitioner decided to adjust so the O.Ps adjusted the same on verbal consent of the complainant/petitioner.
Though she denied the same but subsequent deposit of Rs.2,000/- dated 30 January, 2019 made by the petitioner impliedly proves her consent given to the O.Ps. Had she not been consented she should have raised her voice on 02 January 2019. On the other hand, at the end of the year she lodged the complaint on 19/11/2019 and balance shows as on 28/10/2019 Rs.9908.40/- i.e still there is dues against the said loan.
We therefore, of the considered view that the petitioner was a defaulted borrower and on account of the adjustment as stated above there was no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps and the O.Ps did not made unfair practice, so the complainant is not entitled to get the relief as claimed in the complaint petition.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the petition filed U/s 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 registered as C.C-61/2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps.
No order as to cost.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
