DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 16 of 2020.
Date of hearing : 26.09.2023.
Date of order : 14.11.2023.
Dated the14th day of November 2023.
Harekrushna Panda, S/o:-Madhusudan Panda,
Vill/Po:-Kadabarang, P.S:- Agarpada, Dist:- Bhadrak.
………….. Complainant.
-:Versus:-
1. Branch Manager, Bank of India,
Kadabarang Branch, At/Po:-Kadabarang,
P.S:- Agarpada, Dist:-Bhadrak.
2. Zonal Manager, Bank of India,
Bhubaneswar Zone, Dist:-Khurda, Odisha.
3. General Manager, District Industries Centre,
Bhadrak, At/Po/Dist:-Bhadrak.
.…………Opposite parties.
P R E S E N T S.
1. Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,
2. Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.
Counsels appeared for the parties.
For the Complainant : Sri Giridhari Nath, Advocate & Associates.
For the Opp. Party : Sri Subash Ch. Panda, Advocate& Associate.
J U D G M E N T.
SRI SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY, PRESIDENT.
In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Fact of the case is that, the complainant was selected by the O.P.No.3 for availing loan of Rs.85,000/- as a beneficiary under PMEGP Scheme for opening of a Grocery Shop in the year 2008 from the Branch of O.P.No.1. O.P.No.2 is the higher authority of O.P.No.1. Out of loan amount Rs.85,000/- approved by O.P.No.1 for aforesaid scheme, O.P.No.1 released an amount of Rs.60,000/- cash in favour of complainant vide loan A/c No.1738 & Rs.20,000/- as kept in the bank by the O.P.No.1 as F.D. But the O.P.No.1 did not disclose about the rest amount of Rs.5,000/-. After receiving cash the complainant started a Grocery Shop & used to pay the installment amount to the O.Ps Bank regularly. Complainant paid 1st installment amounting to Rs.2,000/- on 18.04.2008 & last installment amount to Rs.2,500/- was paid on 25.01.2011 to the Bank. Complainant has paid Rs.72,600/- vide installments to the O.Ps Bank vide aforesaid 16 installments. In addition to the aforesaid amount Rs.72,600/- the maturity value amounting Rs.24,710/- of the FD amount Rs.20,000/- was also credited to the loan account of the complainant. As such complainant has paid Rs.72,600 + Rs.24,710 = Rs.97,310/- to the O.Ps Bank towards the loan amount & after payment of the said amount the rest loan amount Rs.7,675/- was shown as outstanding dues by the O.P.No.1 as on 01.02.2011 & O.P.No.1 stated that no further interest will be charged to the complainant as the subsidy amount Rs.12,500/- shall be released & the outstanding loan amount Rs.7,675/- shall be adjusted from the said subsidy amount & the rest amount will be paid to the complainant. As such O.P.No.1 returned back the documents of the complainant such as HSC Original certificate & other documents which he had received against loan. O.Ps did not liquidate the loan account, but charged the interest on the balance amount Rs.7,675/- & pressurized the complainant to pay the aforesaid loan amount with interest illegally & without any cogent reason. Complainant meet the O.P.No.1 at his branch very often & request him to liquidate the loan account & pay him back the balance subsidy amount Rs.4,825/- (as per account of O.P.No.1). But O.P. No.1 did not pay any heed to it. Complainant feeling harassed made complaint before the Judge, P & C Lok Adalat at Bhadrak bearing LA Case No.60/2011 was initiated & for redressal of grievance of the complainant Ld. Judge held different sittings i.e. on18.08.2011, 19.09.2011, 19.01.2012 & 18.04.2012, but the O.Ps did not attend all the sessions for which the grievances of the complainant could not be settled & went on harassing the complainant deliberately. One Sri Subash Chandra Panda, Advocate, Bhadrak on behalf of the O.Ps attended the Lok Adalat in LA Case No.60/2011& assured to liquidate the loan account & settle the dispute & thereby he had submitted a letter dtd.17.08.2021 issued by O.P.No.1. On 19.11.2011 complainant had obtained the account statement from the O.Ps Bank. Complainant made request before the O.Ps by showing the aforesaid account statement to liquidate the loan account & release the balance subsidy amount, but O.P.No.1 instead of liquidation he used to debit the amount from the SB Account of complainant bearing No.2107 (535710100002107) very soon.O.P.No.1 has deducted an amount of Rs.5,255/- from the SB Account of the complainant & credited the same to the loan account No.1738 illegally & arbitrarily. In the month of Sept, 2011 the complainant intimated to the G.M. DIC Bhadrak O.P.No.3 expressing the grievance about his subsidy amount in respect of his loan account No.1738 & he also stated for taking steps to liquidate the loan account with the O.Ps Bank & settle the loan dispute. O.P.No.1 stated that loan account will be closed if the complainant shall pay Rs.3,000/- & he motivated by stating that the subsidy amount will be released in his favour & he also showed fear of fine & penalty if the payment is not made. So the innocent complainant believed the O.P.No.1 & deposited Rs.3,000/- vide deposit slip on 02.02.2018 & on that deposit slip the O.P.No.1 himself also made endorsement “Settled for Rs.3,000/-. As such complainant reached a conclusion that his loan account will be closed. On 10.02.2018 complainant requested the O.P.No.1 to release the subsidy amount & issue the clearance certificate. O.P.No.1 told to issue the same after some days & in this way O.P.No.1 delayed. The O.P.No.1 deliberately & knowing fully did not release the subsidy amount & issue clearance certificate to the complainant which amounts to deficiency of service & cause of harassment & humiliation. Complainant found that instead of closure of loan account O.P.No.1 has deliberately made deduction of Rs.849.71 on 25.11.2019 from SB A/c & credited to the loan A/c No.1738. O.Ps are liable to pay compensation for their act of deficiency of service & illegal trade practice. Complainant has prayed to direct the O.Ps to refund amount of Rs.5,255/- deducted for time to time w.e.f. 11.06.2015 03.08.2017 from the SB A/c of the complainant along with interest. O.Ps are also liable to pay Rs.12,500/- being subsidy amount & interest thereon w.e.f. 2011. The O.Ps are also liable to to refund Rs.5,000/- & interest thereon out of sanctioned amount Rs.85,500/- which the O.P.No.1 concealed the same to the complainant. The O.P.No.1 is also liable to refund Rs.3,000/- to the complainant which the O.Ps illegally secured on dt.02.02.2018. The O.Ps be further directed to issue clearance certificate in respect of loan Account No.1738 in favour of the complainant.
O.P.No.1,2 & 3 even after getting the notice did not file their written version. They were precluded from filing any written version. However, during argument OP No.1 & 2 submitted that, the complainant has sanctioned loan by O.P. of Rs.85,000/- on dt.17.03.2008 as per Bank document & Rs.60,000/- paid to the supplier as the complainant submitted the quotation of M/s Shree Ananta Variety Store & rest of the amount Rs.25,000/- disbursed to the Borrower under PMRY Scheme of the complainant. As such the complainant out of Rs.25,000/- kept fixed deposit in the O.Ps Bank. The loan amount only be credited to the account holder. The debit balance of the complainant is there, system will charge the interest automatically. One F.D. was in the name of the complainant separately, due to non-payment of loan amount. The said FD matured value of Rs.24,710.36 has appropriated against the loan account. The subsidy amount has not yet received by the Bank as per the statement of account of the complainant. Only the subsidy amount deposited in the Borrower account. The outstanding balance of the loan is there as such the amount of deduction is appropriate as per the Bank’s guidelines. The Nationalized Bank is transparent organization. Only account credit is allowed. As such the official all transactions are to be done through account only. The complainant has lastly compromised the matter and his loan account No.535773200001738 was closed on 14.03.2022 accordingly. O.Ps have not committed any act which amounts to deficiency in service & so also O.Ps are not liable to pay any compensation. OP No.3 did not appear.
Having heard the rival contentions and materials available in the record, this commission frames these following issues for just and fair adjudication of the dispute.
ISSUES
- Whether the Bank has erred by not providing the entire loan approved?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get back the subsidy as per the PMEGP Scheme?
- Whether the complainant has repaid the loan with interest as agreed?
- If so then did the Bank committed deficiency in service by not winding up the loan and by not issuing ‘No Dues Certificate’ in favour of the complainant?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled to?
It is the admitted case of all these parties involved in dispute is that the amount of loan approved in favour of the complainant under the PMEGP scheme was Rs.85,000/- . It is also the admitted case of OP No.1 is that it had only disbursed Rs.60,000/- in favour of the complainant. The reply of OP No.1 that as the complainant has provided a quotation of Rs.60,100/-, so they have advanced only Rs.60,000/-. The said quotation dtd. 13/03/2008 relates only to the Grocery Materials, apart from that the complainant could have used the rest fund in preparation of Racks or could have used the amount in procuring a Shop Room. So, the OP Bank has erred in not disbursing the whole loan amount in favour of the complainant. So, Issue No.1 is answered in positive and against the OP Bank.
As mentioned in the Bank approval paper dtd 17/03/2008 the rate of interest has been shown as 11.25%. The subsidy has been shown there at the rate of 15% i.e. Rs.12,500/- over a Loan Amount of Rs.85,000/-. The complainant is entitled to get a subsidy of Rs. 9000/- @ 15% of Loan amount of Rs.60,000/-. As per the terms of the scheme, the complainant is entitled to get subsidy at the rate of 15% of the loan amount. So, the Issue No.2 is answered in affirmative and in favour of the Complainant.
Issue No.3 & 4 are jointly taken into consideration. It is also the admitted case of OP No.1 is that it had only disbursed Rs.60,000/- in favour of the complainant. Another Rs.20,000/- is said to be kept as fixed deposit. OP Bank failed to clarify whether an amount of Rs.25,000/- or Rs.20,000/- was kept in shape of fixed deposit. When the said loan advance was covered under Guarantee of DICGC, it was in breach of the scheme to keep fixed deposit as security. They further failed to explain if an amount of Rs.20,000/- was kept as fixed deposit where is the rest Rs.5,000/-? OP Bank even failed to clarify whether they have charged interest over Rs.60,000/- or Rs. 85,000/-. As mentioned in the Bank approval paper dtd 17/03/2008 the rate of interest has been shown as 11.25%. Complainant had paid 1st installment amounting to Rs.2,000/- on 18.04.2008 & last installment amount to Rs.2,500/- was paid on 25.01.2011 to the Bank. Complainant has paid Rs.72,600/- vide installments to the O.Ps Bank vide aforesaid 16 installments. The period from 17/03/2008 to 25/01/2011 is 2 Years 10 Months and 8 Days. The interest which might have accrued over Rs.60,000/- should have been Rs. Rs.19,275/- for 2 years 10 months and 8 days i.e. up to 25/01/2011 at the rate of 11.25%. So, the total payable by 25/01/2011 should have been Rs. 60,000/- + Rs. 19,275/-= Rs.79,275/-. There apart the complainant is entitled to get a subsidy of Rs. 9000/- @ 15% of Loan amount of Rs.60,000/-. As the complainant has not yet received the subsidy amount even after 12 years of repayment of the loan, the subsidy amount of Rs.9,000/- may be construed as paid to the OP Bank. So, the complainant has paid Rs72,600/-+ Rs.9000/-(subsidy)= Rs.81,600/- by 25/01/2022 which is in excess of Rs.2325/-. So whatever amount the OP Bank has charged and taken from the complainant that day after is in excess of their legitimate dues. O.Ps has also deducted an amount of Rs.5,255/- from time to time from 11.06.2015 to 03.08.2017 from the SB A/c of the complainant.O.P.No.1 has deliberately made deduction of Rs.849.71 on 25.11.2019 from SB A/c & credited to the loan A/c No.1738. O.P.No.1 had also collected an amount of Rs.3,000/- vide deposit slip on 02.02.2018 making an endorsement “Settled for Rs.3,000/-. So both Issue No.3 & 4 are thus answered in favour of the complainant. The OP Bank cannot be allowed to take subterfuge of the computer system generated automatic interest deduction. Even after giving it writing that Settled for Rs.3000/-, the OP Bank miserably failed to feed and direct their computer to show the loan account as closed.
So the OP Bank has collected Rs.2325/- + Rs.5225/-+ Rs.849.71+Rs.3000/-= Rs.11,399.71 rounded off Rs.11,400/- which they should return to the complainant and also these OP No.1 & 2 are liable to pay compensation for putting the complainant in the present ordeal for these inordinate period. Issue No.5 is thus answered in favour of the complainant.
O R D E R.
In the result, the complaint be & same is allowed. OP No.1 & 2 are directed to make refund of Rs. 11,400/- to the complainant along with a compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- and another Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost & “No Dues Certificate” against Loan No.1738 within 30 days from the order. In the event O.P.No.1 & 2 fail to pay the amount within the specified period they have to pay the same with interest of 6% till the day the actual payment is made.
This order is pronounced in the open Court on this the 14th day of November 2023 under my hand and seal of the Commission.
