Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.12.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to refund the access amount of Rs. 24,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Four Thousand only ) along with 12% interest.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty Thousand only ) as compensation and litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he had approached opposite party no. 1 for loan amounting to Rs. 1,70,000/- which is equal to 18 months of the salary of the complainant. The aforesaid loan amount was sanctioned on 05.05.2005 and the EMI was fixed of Rs. 4,350/- spread for the 48 months. The aforesaid amount of EMI i.e. Rs. 4,350/- was deducted every month from the salary of the complainant.
It has been further asserted by the complainant that statement of account furnished to him from opposite party no. 1for the period 05.06.2005 to 06.08.2005 showed interest @ 10.25% and the EMI was deducted from salary on 26.05.2005, 30.05.2005, 06.06.2005, 05.07.2005 and 05.07.2005 were Rs. 4,350/- thus total amount of Rs. 21,750/- was paid which constitute five installment within the period of four months.
From the account furnished for the period 31.08.2005 to 01.12.2008 it appears that the interest was @ 13.50%. Consequently, EMI was deducted from his salary. The statement of account for the period 01.08.2005 to 13.05.2009 reflexed the interest @ 12.75% and the EMI was deducted from his salary account. In the same way the statement of account for the period 31.08.2005 to 14.05.2009 shows the rate of interest @ 12.75%.
Complainant has further asserted that opposite party no. 1 has deducted from his salary from 05.07.2008 EMI of Rs. 5,125/- and lastly EMI of Rs. 11,460/- were deducted. The aforesaid fact will appear from annexure -1. The complainant thereafter tried to solve the dispute with opposite party with regard to aforementioned fluctuation in the rate of interest but no action has been taken and the grievance of the complainant that Rs. 24,000/- has been deducted from his salary has not been redressed. In this regard he has annexed annexure – 2.
The complainant has further asserted that from annexure – 2 it appears that the sanctioned loan was Rs. 1,70,000/- and the complainant had to pay Rs. 2,34,000/- and no action has been taken by opposite party no. 1 to refund the aforesaid amount.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 to 3 a written statement has been filed stating therein that the complainant having suppressed certain truth. In Para – 1 of the complaint the complainant has asserted that on 30.05.2005 a sum of Rs. 4,350/- has been deducted from his salary account but in fact is that the aforesaid sum has been transferred in his saving account from loan account on his own request which has been shown in the column of debit in loan account vide standing order (SO 24001) dated 30.05.2005 shown in the statement of account annexure – 1.
It has been further stated in Para – 2 of written statement that the statement made in paragraph 6 to 8 of the complaint petition are misconceived because from perusal of annexure – 1 i.e. statement of account, it is crystal clear that there is change in rate of interest time to time as per norms of policy decision of the Bank and the interest has been calculated as per policy of the Bank. In Para – 3 of written statement it has been asserted that from perusal of annexure – 1 it is crystal clear that not a single paise has been deducted from his salary account. In Para – 5 of the written statement the following facts have been asserted, “that in reply to the statement made in paragraph 9 and 10 to the complaint petition it is stated that due to increase in interest rate amount of loan enhanced which was adjusted by enhancing the amount of monthly installment from Rs 4,350/- to Rs 5,125/- only from 05.07.2008 for recovery of loan amount in time and when the installment fell due it has been recovered with arrear together. Thus the opposite parties never caused any loss to the complainant as only due EMIs have been recovered.” It has been denied by the opposite party that the Bank has snatched Rs. 24,000/- from the complainant.
We think it proper to quote the fact mentioned in Para – 9 of the written statement which appears to be as follows, “that statement made in paragraph 15 to the compliant petition are misconceived hence hereby denied by the opposite parties as facts have not been properly understood by the complainant since loan was borrowed on 05.05.2005 and repaid till 14.05.2009 i.e. in four years then amount of interest naturally goes up which is matter of calculation may be seen from the statement of accounts ( annexure – 1). Thus allegations made against opposite parties are false and outcome of mind of complainant which must be deprecated.”
Heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail and we have narrated the fact of the case in brief in the forgoing paragraphs.
It is the case of the complainant that excess amount has been deducted from his salary account.
It is the case of the opposite party that for the statement of account contained in annexure – 1 it is crystal clear that the Bank has realized the loan amount from the complainant with fluctuating rate of interest under the policy of the Bank guided by the Reserve Bank of India. It has been submitted by the opposite party that not a single excess amount has been deducted from the salary of the complainant.
No any documents has been produced by the complainant showing the recovery of EMI against the agreement because copy of agreement for the loan between the complainant and the Bank have not been submitted by either of the party showing the recovery against the term of the agreement.
It is needless to say that it is the complainant whose duty is to prove that the loan amount has been deducted against the terms and conditions because the opposite party have clearly stated that the deduction of loan amount has been done as per policy of the Bank which is regulated by Reserve Bank of India.
For the discussion made above we find no merit in this case and as such this case stands dismissed but without cost.
Member President
