DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C NO.27 OF 2016
Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra - President.
Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik - Member.
Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy - Member.
Sri Sumant Kumar Pattnaik, aged about 39 years.
S/O- Surya Narayan Pattnaik Vill/ PO- Hatapada,
Near LIC Office, Phulbani PS/Dist- Town, Phulbani, Kandhamal. ………………………….. Complainant.
Versus .
Branch Manager
State Bank of India (Bazar Branch)
At/PO- Main Road, Phulbani PS/Dist- Town,
Phulbani,Kandhamal . …………………………….. OPP. Parties.
For the Complainant: Sri Manaj Kumar Sahoo, Advocate and his Associates.
For the OPP. Parties: Sri V.V Ramadas, Advocate,Phulbani.
Date of Order: 31-08-2017
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant in brief is that he is the customer under the O.P as he had availed a vehicle loan from the O.P on 31-03-2008 for an amount of Rs.4, 80,000/- vide loan account No. 30358907734. The proposed EMI was for 83 months fixed by the O.P and the monthly installment was Rs. 9, 325, 83 paisa including 15% annual interest. The Complainant availed the said loan to earn his livelihood from the taxi business. He was paying monthly instalment regularly till 31-03-2015 and deposited Rs. 7, 92,849/- against the loan amount which covers 75 monthly installments. On 31-10-2015 the O.P advised him to deposit Rs. 20,000/- towards the remaining loan amount in order to close the loan account. So, he arranged money and went to the Bank of the O.P to deposit the same amount but the O.P did not receive the said amount and told him to supply the up to date status of the loan account. ON 14-06-2013 the Complainant had received registered demand notice from the O.P in which the total installments were mentioned as 60 instead of 83 and the installment amount was mentioned as Rs. 10,549/- instead of Rs. 9,325,83P.It was also mentioned that the outstanding loan amount was Rs. 2, 78,679/-till 13-06-2013 including overdue installment up to 30-09-2012 which was Rs. 40,016/-. In Para No.3 of the notice it was alleged against the Complainant that
-2-
he failed to repay the loan amount in spite of repeated request. After getting this notice the Complainant approached the O.P to supply the statement of accounts but he avoided. But later on he had received the statement of account of his loan amount and found some irregularities. So, he approached the O.P to rectify the same but he threatened to seize the vehicle. On 15-07-2016 he had received another notice from the O.P alleging against him. So, this complaint was filed by him against the O.P to refund the excess payment received from the Complainant along with interest. He also claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards his mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
The case of the O.P as per his version is that the EMI was not fixed for 83 installments but it was fixed for 84 instilments. The Complainant become defaulter 2 months prior to November 2010 and the O.P Bank issued several letters and kept the account under N.P account. The question of asking Rs.20, 000/- for closure of account does not arise when the account shows balance of outstanding dues of Rs. 84,755/- . Nobody has also stated not to receive Rs. 20,000/- from the Complainant towards his loan account. The installment amount was fixed for Rs. 8,668/- for month. The further case of the O.P is that the Complaint is not maintainable and the same is barred by limitation .So, the Complainant is not entitled for any damage , cost and compensation as Bank has not committed any deficiency in service .
During course of hearing the Complainant has filed an affidavit in support of his case. He was examined and cross examined. One Ajit Kumar Achraya, the Branch Manager of S.B.I had filed an affidavit in support of the case of the O.P who was examined and cross examined. During examination of witness, Exit-1 to Exit-6 were marked on behalf of the Complainant.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. We have also heard the Complainant and the O.P. We have gone through the complaint petition, the version filed by the O.P, the affidavits filed by the parties and their depositions. We have perused the documents filed by the Complainant in support of his case. No documents were filed by the O.P in support of his case. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Complainant that the O.P has committed gross negligence by changing the number of installments from 83 t0 60 and committed deficiency in service by not supplying statement of the loan account to the Complainant. In other hand the learned counsel of the O.P submitted that there was no cause of action to file this complaint against the O.P and the O.P Bank has not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant .
The Complaint filed by the Complainant with a prayer to get compensation of Rs. 50,000/- from the O.P for his mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation cost and for a direction to the O.P to refund excess payment received from the Complainant with interest. So, the main point of consideration is that whether the O.P Bank had received excess amount from the Complainant and he is liable to pay compensation and litigation cost to the Complainant .
-3-
The allegation of the Complainant is that in Exit-3 it is mentioned by the O.P Bank that the term loan is repayable in 60 installments and Rs. 10,549/- per month is payable to the O.P Bank by the Complainant. It is also mentioned in Exit-3 that an amount of Rs. 2, 78669/- is pending against the Complainant as on 13-06-2013 including overdue installments amounting Rs. 40,016/- as on 30-09-2012. The O.P Bank gave this notice to the Complainant to pay the aforesaid amount within 7 days otherwise Bank will be compelled to give the case to seizer agent. But in para-11 of the version it is mentioned by the O.P Bank that the Complainant has another car loan account in the O.P Bank and the period of the installment and EMI has been in advertently mentioned in the demand notice vide Exit-3 without having any ulterior motive. It is a fact that the Complainant had cleared earlier car loan and close the account .So, the particulars of that account are impleaded in the said notice. It is also stated in the version that the EMI was fixed for 84 installments and the installment amount was Rs. 8,668/- per installment. On 26-07-2016 another notice vide Exit-5 was given to the Complainant.
The Complainant has filed this complaint being aggrieved by these two letters issued by the O.P Bank. The Complainant had stated that he had cleared up the loan amount by giving 75 installments. So, as per his pleading he had not paid rest 8 installments to the O.P bank. The Complainant is not able to establish that he had given excess amount to the O.P Bank. As the O.P bank has admitted his mistake as far as Exit-3, the demand notice dated 14-06-2013 is concerned, it cannot be said that the O.P Bank was not negligent by sending the wrong letter to the Complainant. This demand notice caused mental agony and forced the Complainant to file this complaint against the O.P. Hence, the Complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed in part and the O.P is liable to give compensation to the Complainant.
In the above circumstances the O.P is directed to regularize the loan account of the Complainant and to give him the up to date position of the loan amount. The O.P is further directed not to impose further interest from the date of filing of this Complainant i.e. 01-08-2016. The O.P is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- towards the mental agony of the Complainant and Rs. 1000/- as cost of litigation. The above order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The interim order passed by us on 04-08-2016 is hereby vacated.
The C.C is disposed of. Supply free copies of this order to both the parties.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
