Sri Partha Kumar Basu, Hon’ble Member:
The complaint case is filed u/s 35, 38 (2) and 39 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant against the OP-1 Bank and the OP-2 Branch Manager of the said Bank for a complaint valued at Rs.5,00,000/-.
The gist of the case as averred by complainant is that the complainant availed a cash credit loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the OP-2 branch of the bank for commercial purpose for carrying out grocery business solely for earning livelihood. The OP-2 branch sanctioned the loan on 30.09.2013 in favour of the complainant against mortgage of a piece of land held as security as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement. It is the case of the complainant that the OP-2 branch did not provide any document regarding the terms and conditions of the loan and avoided to provide the same to the complainant on one pretext or the other. The OP-2 branch took away the original registered sale deed dated 27.08.2013 from the complainant but never handed over any relevant paper or documents related to the said loan or copy of loan agreement signed by the complainant. The complainant states that he is not aware of the payable EMI amount or the date of EMI payment or the interest component thereof. The complainant found from the bank pass book that there is no parity regarding deduction of EMI as reflected in the passbook and deducted the EMI on account of the loan as per their sweet will. The complainant was in dark and could not raise objection in writing. The complainant states that the loan was sanctioned against an annual interest of 11.75 % when the EMI deduction continued till February, 2018. As such the complainant is not clear about the repayment schedule. The EMI deduction got stopped from March, 2018 for reason unknown of the complainant where there was no case of insufficient fund in the complainant’s bank account for the purpose of deducting EMI. Neither the complainant ever requested to stop EMI deduction having no role of the complainant in this regard. The OP Branch seized the bank account thereafter of the complainant as a result of which the complainant is facing serious financial problem to maintain his livelihood. Thereafter on 15.02.2021 the OP-2 Branch directed the complainant to pay the balance loan amount of Rs.2,06,154/- and handed over a document which reveals that after making payment of the said amount the loan obligation will be completed. Accordingly the complainant agreed to pay the said amount as settlement without any objection. But on 25.03.2021, the OP Branch deducted Rs.1,47,773/- from the complainant’s bank account and did not deduct the rest Amount of Rs.58,381- in spite of having sufficient balance. The OP bank did not give satisfactory reply of such actions or to the reason of part recovery. It is the claim of the complaint that as the OP-2 did not give any satisfactory reply to the part deduction of Rs.1,47,773/- so the Bank is not entitled to get any interest out of the residual amt. of Rs.58,381/-. The complaint states that admittedly the bank is entitled to get repayment of the balance amount towards the loan which the complainant is always ready to repay. But the complainant is not responsible for non-recovery of the whole amount of outstanding. Neither the OP2 branch returned the original sale deed of the mortgaged property to the complainant in spite of several requests, which is clearly a deficiency of service and adoption of unfair trade practices. The complainant went to the office of the OP-2 Bank with a prayer for issuing of NOC but neither the OP-2 branch deducted the balance EMI dues from the account of the complainant nor issued NOC / refunded the original registered sale deed in spite of legal noticed dated 04.07.2023.
Hence the complainant in this complaint case prays for following reliefs before this commission for directions on OP1 and OP2 :-
- Closure of cash credit loan account no.5297250003806
- Issuance of NOC regarding the loan account after recovery of the rest loan amount
- Return of the Original registered sale deed of the complainant vide deed no.03064 of 2013dated 27.01.2013.
- Not to deduct interest component on account of balance EMI on Rs.58,381/- from 25.03.2021 till current date
- Releasing the balance EMI towards the loan account from his Bank Account.
- A compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony
- A litigation cost of Rs.1,00,000/-.
The complainant in support of this complainant case filed copies of extract of his Bank pass book(Pg. No.10-17), Notice dated 15.02.2021 from the OP bank regarding loan settlement (Pg-18), Sale Deed dated 27.08.2013 (Pg.19-27) and reminder letter from complainant to OP bank (Pg.-28),
The case has been running ex-parte against the OP-1 and OP-2 as per order dated 21.11.2023 though S/R was duly completed as per T/R of Dept. of Posts filed by the complainant and both the OPs, either the branch of the bank (OP-2) or the higher office of the bank (OP1) never appeared before this commission or filed W/V. The final hearing was conducted on 11.03.2024 when the Ld. Advocate of complainant advanced their arguments and filed BNA. Hence the matter was taken up for hearing and adjudication based on arguments and materials on record.
It is noted that the complainant filed the complaint alleging that he has been sanctioned a cash credit loan of Rs.5,00,000/-on 30.09.2013 for the purpose of grocery business for earning livelihood with an annual interest @ 11.75% against property mortgage as security as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement extended by OP branch of the bank vide loan account no. 5297250003806repayable in Equated Monthly Instalments(EMIs). It is averred that EMIs due towards repayment of the loan were being debited from petitioner’s one bank account from time to time. It is also averred that the Opposite Party - Bank never informed the complainant about any of the details of the that loan taken from time to time and more so, the Opposite Party- Bank never ever had demonstrated any parity regarding EMI deduction as depicted in the pass book. Neither did the bank provide any document regarding the terms and conditions of the loan, got the original registered sale deed dated 27.08.2013 as mortgage but never handed over any relevant paper or documents related to the said loan or copy of loan agreement signed by the complainant. The complainant states being unaware of the payable details of EMI or the interest component thereof, he had no knowledge of it. The complainant states that the EMI continued till only February, 2018 and the deduction got stopped from March, 2018 for the reason unknown to complainant though there was no case of insufficient fund in the complainant’s bank account. Neither the complainant ever requested to stop EMI deduction. Thereafter on 15.02.2021 the bank directed the complainant to pay the balance loan amount of Rs.2,06,154/- and handed over a document which reveals that after making payment of the said amount the loan obligation would get completed. Accordingly the complainant agreed to pay the said amount as settlement without any objection. But on 25.03.2021, the OP Branch deducted Rs.1,47,773/- from the complainant’s bank account and did not deduct the rest amount of Rs.58,381- in spite of having sufficient balance. The complaint claimed that OP-2 did not give any satisfactory reply to the part deduction of Rs.1,47,773/- and hence the bank is not entitled to get any interest out of the residual amount of Rs.58,381/-. The complaint admittedly told on averment that the bank is entitled to get repayment of the balance amount towards the loan which the complainant is always ready to repay. But neither the OP2 branch returned the original sale deed of the mortgaged property to the complainant nor issued NOC nor deducted the balance EMI dues from the account of the complainant in spite of legal notice dated 04.07.2023.
It is averred by complainant that the Opposite Party - Bank has itself restructured the loan account unilaterally to suit its own interest. Herein, it is observed that complainant maintained sufficient balance althroughto timely repay the EMI from inception till filing of this complaint case. This fact stands corroborated from copy of bank passbook placed on record by the complainant. The contention raised by the complainant that he was not in the knowledge anything about his loan details also goes unchallenged being the case heard ex-parte and there is no other way out but to accept the evidence of the complainant on affidavit being unopposed. No notice about any lien, lispendenee or any kind of encumbrance etc. like notice under SARFAESI Act 2002 is placed on record either. The arguments raised by the Counsel for the complainants that restructuring of the Loan Account was done by the opposite party - Bank, without taking any consent from the complainants, is not bereft of substance as the complainants never defaulted in maintaining sufficient balance of fund in his bank account for making regular payments of the EMIs. This fact goes to show that no rejoinder has been filed by the OPs to rebut this plea even at the stage of final hearing, since running ex-parte. However, it may be stated herein that even if, there is no request for restricting of the loan account from the borrower, banks internally undertake restructuring of loans, if the borrower is unable to repay the amount in the interest of the borrower to avoid loan account turning NPA and consequences thereof. This involves changing the terms of repayment, which includes altering the payment schedule of loans or amount of EMI. Also many a times the loan availed by the complainants are at floating rate of interest working out changes in rate of EMI. It may also be stated here that each Bank has a different base rate because it arrives at the calculation after considering factors such as cost of funds etc. This base rate is reviewed each quarter depending upon the macroeconomic situation following which the floating rate of interest may change and impact the EMI as well. We find nothing wrong with the opposite party - Bank so far as charging of different EMI or interest, which might be of floating one. At times, the banks, at the time of hardship of the complainants in not taking the EMIs and had been accommodating and helping the complainants by accepting the restructured/delayed payments. But so far as the contention of the complainant that the opposite party - Bank did not inform about the change in interest rate or EMI from time to time, is quite tenable in this case. Hence the alleged disparity in providing details in passbook is not proved sufficiently.
Further it is observed that though vide an exhibited document of 15.02.2021, the bank proposed to the complainant to clear up balance loan amount of Rs.2,06,154/- the OP Bank deducted Rs.1,47,773/- on 25.03.2021 from complainant’s bank account leaving behind the residual amount of Rs.58,381/- in spite of having sufficient balance in the bank account although. There is no document on record to satisfy the reason of such part deduction inspite of having sufficient balance. The deduction of EMI got stopped interim in March 2018 and the recovery of the balance portion of the said loan, as per their own proposal by the OP bank for settlement was not given effect, tantamounting to additional interest burden on the loanee without his consent. Hence the complaint on this aspect gets established leading to deficiency of service.
Summing up all, this Commission is of the concerted view that the complainant has succeeded in part to make out a case of deficiency in rendering service on the part of the OPs - Bank.
For the reasons recorded above, the complaint filed by the complainants is allowed being of merit but with no order as to cost.
Hence, it is,
ORDERED
That the instant complaint case is hereby allowed ex-parte against the O.Ps. in part without any cost with the following directions:-
- The OP1 and OP2, jointly and / or severally, are liable and directed to debit an amount of maximum Rs.58,381 /- from the existing bank account of the complainant from which EMIs were being recovered, towards repayment of balance loan amount, as full and final settlement of the loan account vide settlement letter dated 15.02.2021 issued by OP bank, without inflicting any further lending/penal interest.
- The OP1 and OP2 jointly and / or severally are liable and directed to return the original sale deed of the mortgaged property to the complainant and issue No Objection Certificate thereof after recover of amount as per serial (1) above.
Both the above directions are to be complied within 60 days from the date of this order.
In case of non-compliance by the OPs within the stipulated period, the petitioner is at liberty to put the entire order into execution as per law.
Copies of this order be given to the parties free of charges as per CPR 2005.
Copy of this order will be available in the public domain of www.confonet.nic.in
File be consigned back to the Record Room after completion.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member
