IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

             CASE No.  CC/22/2017.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                Date of Disposal:

     28.02.17                                      07.03.17                                   13.08.19                          

Complainant: Mohan Singh, S/o Late, Gobinda Singh

11 R.K. Bhattacharjee Lane,

PO&PS-BErhampore,

 Pin-742101

Dist-Murshidabad

-Vs-

Opposite Party: 1. Branch Manager (Berhampore Branch)

State Bank of India, 15, Square East,

PO&PS-Berhampore,

Pin-742101

Dist-Murshidabad

2. General Manager (Regional Branch Office)

State Bank of India, PO&PS-Berhampore,

Dist-Murshidabad

Pin-742101

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        : Sri. Pranab Kumar Das.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1&2        : Sri. Satinath Chandra.

                       Present:   Sri Asish  Kumar Senapati………………….......President.                              

                                          Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

                                                FINAL ORDER

 Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.

  This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

            One Mohan Singh (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Berhampore Branch and another (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

            The Complainant took a house building loan from the OP No.1 amounting Rs.5,00,000/- on 06.09.07 for purchase of a flat on condition to repay the said amount in 240 equal monthly installments @ Rs.5,247/-. The Complainant paid installments regularly up to 29.07.08 and subsequently, he could not pay the installments due to non-receipt of his salary from his company. As a result, the loan account of the Complainant was treated as NPA. on 24.07.11. The Complainant received a notice from the OP on 24.05.13 with an  intimation to take initiative for legal action against him. The Complainant also got a possession notice dated 20.06.14 and on his request the Bank Authority advised him to deposit Rs.2,47,212/- for regularisation of the loan. The Complainant filed an application with an intention to pay Rs.1,90,000/- on 08.07.14 and rest amount of Rs.57,212/- within one month. After getting permission from the Bank, the Complainant deposited Rs.1,90,000/- on 08.07.17 and rest amount of Rs.57,212/- within 30.07.14. After receipt of the said amount the Bank Authority assured the Complainant that his loan account has been regularized  and the Complainant would pay only the installment @ Rs.6,800/- per month. Accordingly, the Complainant paid  the installments on regular basis. That on and from 04.07.16, the Bank authority adjusted Rs.7,000/- per month as instalment and on and from 04.09.15, the Bank Authority adjusted Rs.8,000/- per month as instalment without any prior intimation to the Complainant. That on 17.01.15, the Bank Authority adjusted Rs.7,650/- twice instead of fact that the Bank Authority had already adjusted the installments of the said month on 04.11.15.  After complaint the Bank Authority refunded Rs.7,000/- out of Rs. 7,650/- in his savings account. The Complainant became astonished of receiving a notice dated 30.05.16 to the effect that his loan account had become irregular due to non-payment of other due amount of Rs.9,000/-. Moreover, the Bank Authority always increased the rate of interest without prior intimation to the Complainant. The Bank Authority in different time and different days adjusted Rs.1,191/-, Rs.1,276/-, Rs.1,278/-, Rs.1,236/-, Rs. 208/-, Rs.1,216/-, Rs.1,139/-, Rs.1,220/-, Rs.1,220/-, Rs.1,260/-, Rs.1,178/-, Rs. 1,258/-, Rs.1,261/-, Rs.1,222/-, Rs. 1,262, Rs.1,222/- as arrear interest capi and also adjusted Rs.575/- in several times as late EMI charge in spite of that fact the Complainant had no arrear dues. The Complainant never paid the installment after due dates. That on 16.02.17, the Bank Authority adjusted Rs.22,000/- from the savings account of the Complainant without any cause. The Complainant went to the Bank and asked them about the said illegal adjustment but the Bank Authority did not give any proper reply.

            The OPs have deficiency in service. Hence, the Complainant has prayed for a direction upon the OP to produce the actual dues of the Complainant and to refund a sum of Rs.22,000/- which was illegally  adjusted to the loan account from the savings account of the Complainant and also prayed for a direction upon the OP to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment.

            The OPs contested the case by filing written version on 25.08.16 contending that the case is not maintainable. The OPs denied the statements of the Complainant. It is the specific case of the OPs that the Complainant took loan from the Bank and the loan account became NPA for irregular payment of installments. Thereafter, the Bank Authority received the payment form the Complainant instead of taking recovery action in due course of law as per prayer of the Complainant. The payments of the Complainant had been reflected in the statement of account .The OPs had rightly adjusted Rs.22,000/- from the savings account of the Complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

            On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :

Points for consideration

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

3. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?

4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Point no.1

The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as she hired services of the OPs for consideration.

On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986 as she hired services of the OPs for consideration.

Point No.2

     The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.

On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Both the points are thus disposed of.

Point Nos. 3&4

            The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant had paid monthly installments regularly up to 29.07.08 and subsequently, he could not pay the installments regularly due to non-receipt of his salary. It is urged that the Complainant received a notice dated 24.05.13 and a possession notice dated 20.06.14. He argues that the Complainant deposited Rs.2,47,212/- as the OPs assured that his account would be regularized and he will have to pay only monthly installments. It is contended that the OPs deducted different amounts on different dates without any reason and lastly debited Rs.22,000/- from his savings account and adjusted the same to his loan account. He argues that the OPs have deficiency in service as they adjusted Rs.22,000/- from the savings account of the Complainant without any cause and the  Complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.22,000/- and the Complainant is also entitled to get Rs.50,000/- for mental pain and agony.

            In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OPs submits that the Complainant took a house building loan of Rs.5,00,000/- on condition to repay the loan amount in monthly installments but the Complainant stopped payment of installments after July,2008, resulting, the loan account became NPA. The Complainant was served demand notice on 24.05.13 and possession notice dated 20.06.14. The Complainant paid Rs.1,90,000/- on 08.07.14. He argues that the OPs adjusted the amount in the loan account of the Complainant as per terms and conditions of the agreement and adjustment of Rs.22,000/- on 16.02.17 was also within the domain of the OPs. It is submitted that the OPs have filed the statement of accounts of the house building loan account of the Complainant and there is no excess amount received / adjusted by the OPs. He submits that the OPs have no deficiency in service.

            Perused the written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainant and the documents submitted by both sides. Admittedly, the Complainant took house building loan of Rs.5,00,000/- on 06.09.17 on condition to repay the loan with interest by monthly installments and the loan account had turned NPA due to non-payment of EMI after July,2008.

            On a careful consideration over the materials on record including the statement of account ,we find that the payments made by the complainant have duly been entered into statement of accounts and we find no irregularity or illegality in calculation of due amount. We also do not find any deficiency in service for adjustment of Rs.22,000/- from the savings account of the Complainant as the Complainant failed to repay the loan amount with interest as per terms and conditions of the agreement. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  and the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 28.02.17 and admitted on 07.03.17 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

Fees paid are correct.

In the result, the Complaint Case fails. Hence, it is

                                    ORDERED

that the Consumer Case No. CC/22/2017 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OPs without cost.

Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

          President

  Member                                                                                                   President.