Date of Filing : 04.02.2021
Date of Disposal: 29.08.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A.,B.L., .....MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,B.Com. ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.12/2021
THIS MONDAY, THE 29th DAY OF AUGUST 2022
Mr.R.Raja, S/o.Ranganathan Naidu,
Kalpet Village, Periyapalayam Town,
Uthukottai Taluk,
Thiruvallur District. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
The Branch Manager,
Bank of Baroda,
Periyapalayam Branch,
Bazzar Street, Periyapalayam Town,
Uthukottai Taluk,
Thiruvallur District. ..........Opposite party.
Counsel for the complainant : Mr.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite party : Mr.S.Sushil Kumar, Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 25.08.2022 in the presence of Mr.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate counsel for the complainant and Mr.Sushil Kumar counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party in not issuing Statement of Accounts with regard to the car loan availed by him along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to make a clear statement of account regarding the car loan enabling the complainant to repay and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, hardship, strain, inconvenience caused by the act of the opposite party and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
It was the case of the complainant that he availed car loan for Rs.6,20,000/- from the opposite party for purchase of car of value Rs.9,00,000/-. He was making periodically payment without any default till filing of the complaint and during the year 2018 he applied for a crop loan of Rs.50,000/- which he could not repay due to natural calamities. During the month of January 2020 a fresh crop loan was offered by the opposite party in the name of the complainant’s wife for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- and it was advised by the opposite party to clear the earlier outstanding interest of Rs.30,000/- which was done accordingly. The complainant’s wife was sanctioned the crop loan of Rs.9,00,000/- out of which Rs.50,000/- was deducted for earlier loan, Rs.1,75,000/- was adjusted for car loan and a sum of Rs.25,000/- was debited towards insurance and only Rs.6,50,000/- was paid to the complainant’s wife. After adjustment of Rs.1,75,000/- only Rs.1,55,276/- was due for the car loan as on 03.06.2020. When the complainant approached the opposite party for payment of car loan he was informed that there is a due for a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- and when questioned by the complainant as to how the amount of Rs.1,55,276/- has boosted for Rs.2,25,000/-, the opposite party could not explain but threatened the complainant to recall the crop loan. It is submitted by the complainant that he was ready to pay the instalments towards car loan if proper account was submitted by the opposite party. Thus the complainant was came up with the present complaint for the following reliefs;
Directing the opposite party to make a clear statement of account regarding the card loan enabling the complainant to repay;
To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, hardship, strain, inconvenience by the act of the opposite party;
To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
Defence of the opposite party:
The opposite party filed version stating that the car loan was availed under agricultural car loan scheme by submitting agricultural income certificate with effect from May 2015. The complainant has to pay Rs.58,401/- in 14 half yearly instalments (EMI) without any default at floating rate of interest. However, the complainant committed default in paying the instalments towards car loan and the same was classified as Non Performing Asset. The complainant’s car loan account was classified as Non Performing Asset on the basis of IRAC norms of RBI that if anyone loan was classified as Non Performing Asset, then all other facilities would also be classified as Non Performing Asset. All the payment made by the complainant towards car loan was duly given credit to the account of the opposite party. On 06.03.2020 the complainant paid Rs.1,75,000/- towards car loan account and no interest was charged for the period of 16.08.2017 to 10.01.2017 and also for the period from 18.02.2018 to 06.03.2020. Because of the car loan has been classified as Non Performing Asset only after regularisation of the car loan from 10.03.2020 interest was charged and the amount came up to Rs.2,25,000/- as on October 2020. The said aspects were clearly mentioned when legal notice was sent by the complainant by reply notice dated 31.12.2020. Thus only after regularisation of the car loan interest was charged for such period which was justifiable. Thus contending that there is no deficiency in service on their part they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked. On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed but no documents were marked.
Point for consideration:
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not issuing the Statement of Account with respect to the car loan availed by the complainant?
If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?
Point.1:
On the side of the complainant the following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;
Complainant account’s Bank Pass books were marked as Ex.A1&Ex.A2;
Complainant’s wife account Bank pass book was marked as Ex.A3;
Account No.102590100004042 payment receipt (2Nos) dated 30.09.2015 and 29.10.2015 was marked as Ex.A4;
Account No.05890600005256 payment receipt (10Nos) on various dates was marked as Ex.A5;
Complainant’s Statement of Account dated 06.03.2020 and 31.10.2020 were marked as Ex.A6 & Ex.A7;
Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 17.12.2020 was marked as Ex.Ex.A8;
Reply notice by the opposite party to the complainant dated 31.12.2020 was marked as Ex.A9;
Principal credited in Saving Banking account of Rs.2,28,780/- dated 07.04.2017 was marked as Ex.A8;
Bank Statement issued by the opposite party was marked as Ex.A10;
The crux of the arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant is that the opposite party’s bank had failed to furnish a clear Statement of Account regarding car loan enabling him to repay the same and that even after filing of this complaint the opposite party had not come forward to furnish the Statement of Accounts but were contesting the case denying that they are not liable and had not committed any deficiency in service, thus causing delay and mental agony to the complainant and sought for the complaint to be allowed.
However, it was submitted by the counsel for the opposite party that as the complainant had committed default in crop loan it was classified as Non Performing Asset and consequently as per IRAC norms the car loan was also classified as Non Performing Asset and no interest was charged for car loan for the period of 16.08.2017 to 10.01.2017 and also for the period from 18.02.2018 to 06.03.2020. Only when the car loan was regularised by the complainant by paying Rs.1,75,000/- interest was charged and the same was duly informed to the complainant that he has to pay Rs.2,25,000/- as on October 2020. Thus contending that there is no deficiency in service the learned counsel for the opposite party sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
On perusal of the pleadings and documents submitted by both the parties we are of the view that the only grievance of the complainant against the opposite party is that they have not provided a clear Statement of Account with regard to the car loan availed by the complainant. It is also to be appreciated that the complainant had admitted in his complaint that he was ready to repay the entire car loan provided the Statement of Accounts was issued to him. The complainant only seeks to know how the amount of Rs.1,55,279/- as on 06.03.2020 has gone up to Rs.2,25,000/- in October 2020. The defence raised by the opposite party that the interest was added to the car loan only after 06.03.2020 when the car loan account was regularised is also to be considered as an acceptable defence. But when no Statement of Account was provided by the opposite party when demanded by the complainant, this commission has to hold that the bank has committed deficiency in service in not issuing the Statement of Accounts as the complainant as a borrower was legally entitled to know the details of the credit. Thus we answer the point holding that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service in not issuing the Statement of Accounts when demanded by the complainant.
Point No.2:
As we have held above that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not issuing the Statement of Accounts we direct the opposite party to issue the Statement of Accounts for the car loan for the period from 2014 to till October 2020. Further we award Rs.2000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party;
a) to issue the Statement of Accounts within four weeks with regard to car loan;
b) to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 29th day of August 2022.
Sd/- Sd- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 .............. Complainant’s account Bank Pass Book. Xerox
Ex.A2 .............. Complainant another account Bank Pass Book. Xerox
Ex.A3 ............ Complainant’s wife account Bank pass book. Xerox
Ex.A4 .............. Account No.105890100004042 payment receipt (2nos). Xerox
Ex.A5 ............... Account No.05890600005256 payment receipt (10nos). Xerox
Ex.A6 06.03.2020 Complainant’s bank Statement. Xerox
Ex.A7 31.10.2020 Complainant’s bank Statement. Xerox
Ex.A8 17.12.2020 Legal notice to opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A9 31.12.2020 Reply by the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A10 06.03.2020 Bank Statement issued by the opposite party. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite party:
Nil
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
