Presented by Sri P.K. Dash, Member .
The case pertains to deficiency in service enumerated under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986. The case of the Complainant in brief is that:-
Complainant being the consumer of Opposite Party No.1(one) had taken a personal loan of Rs. 1,75,000/-(Rupees one lakh seventy five thousand)only on Dt.03/11/2003. It was agreed upon between the Parties that monthly loan installment of Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only was to be deducted every month from his(Complainant's) salary deposited in Account No. 01190005981 and the same deduction of monthly installments must be completed before his(Complainant's) retirement. The Opposite Party No.1(one) irregularly deducted the loan installment in order to earn more interest and from Dt.06/12/2008 deducted Rs.4,500/-(Rupees four thousand five hundred)only per months.
Further after his superannuation from service, the loan installment was deducted from his pension. The Complainant on Dt.25/07/2012 was misbehaved by the Opposite Party No.2(two) when asked for account statement of his loan account. The Complainant on Dt.24/09/2012 sent pleader notice to Opposite Party No.1(one). For such negligent act of Opposite Parties in deducting loan installment in a disproportionate manner is a deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties towards the Complainant.
The Complainant seeks redressal of the Forum and prays for a direction to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only to the Complainant towards compensation for deficiency in service and harassment by the Opposite Parties.
To substantiate his case the Complainant has filed xerox copies of the following documents:-
Pleader Notice Dt.24/09/2012.
Replay notice Dt.01/10/2012.
Account statement of Saving Bank Account No.01190005981.
Account statement of Saving Bank Account No.11042776095.
Detail transaction in Saving Bank Khata No.11042776095.
Detail transaction in Saving Bank Account of Attabira State Bank of India No. 01190005981.
Being noticed the Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel and filed version denying almost all the allegations of the Complainant.
The Opposite Parties in their version admitted the fact to the extend that Complainant is a bona fide customer (borrower ) and had taken personal loan (flood loan) of Rs. 1,75,000/-(Rupees one lakh seventy five thousand)only and the rest allegations of the Complainant are denied specifically.
The Opposite Parties in their joint version contend that on Dt.03/11/2013 a personal loan (flood loan) of Rs.1,75,000/-(Rupees one lakh seventy five thousand)only was sanctioned in favour of the Complainant and as per the terms of the loan agreement, the entire loan amount was to be payable in 120(one hundred twenty) installments of Rs.2,250/-(Rupees two thousand two hundred fifty)only each and the same was to be paid since December-2003. Bharat Chandra Pradhan was guarantor of the loan amount. The Headmaster, Remunda High School (DDO) vide Annexure-6 assured to repay the loan amount by way of PF and gratuity benefit of the Complainant, if any on toward incident and circumstance happens to the Complainant.
Further contention of the Opposite Party's version are that the Complainant invariably paid an amount of Rs.17,950/-(Rupees seventeen thousand nine hundred fifty)only in cash till March 2005 and there after did not pay the loan installment till November-2008. From December-2008, the Complainant started repaying loan installments @ Rs. 4,500/-(Rupees four thousand five hundred)only per month through his Saving Bank Account No.11042776095 of State Bank of India, Bargarh Branch. The Complainant did not respond to the intimations send to him for repayment of loan installment and as on Dt. 27/09/2012 there was out standing loan amount of Rs. 1,85,217/-(Rupees one lakh eighty five thousand two hundred seventeen)only against the Complainant.
Further more contentions of the Opposite Party's version are that the Complainant never approached the Opposite Parties for his loan account statement at any point of time and to avoid repayment of loan has made false allegation. The allegation that Opposite Party No.2(two) misbehaved the Complainant and declared to hold his pension are categorically denided. The other allegation like the Opposite Party/Bank agreed to deduct a sum of Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only per month from the salary of the Complainant and the total amount shall be recovered before his retirement, the Opposite Party/ Bank deducted Rs. 4,500/-(Rupees four thousand five hundred)only from December-2008 are categorically denied.
The Opposite Party's categorically have denied any sort of deficiency of service caused by them to the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
In support of claims and denials the Opposite Parties filed xerox copies of following documents:-
Loan application form and sanction order.
Arrangement letter signed by the Complainant.
Personal agreement with bank signed by the Complainant.
Deed of guarantee signed by Bharat Chandra Pradhan
Irrevocable letter of Authority.
Application letter for sanctioning loan.
Letter for deduction of Installment by Headmaster, Remunda, Govt. High School.
Details of account statement of Complainant bearing loan account No.01593000598100 which in now renumbered as 10777721264.
Heard both the Parties, perused the pleadings, documents and affidavits available on record, the probable issues likely to be decided by the Forum are as follows:-
Is there any irregularity in repayment of loan amount ?
Whether Opposite Party's responsible for cause of irregularity for repayment of loan amount by the Complainant and whether can be held responsible for deficiency in service to the Complainant ?
What relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
IN ANSWER TO ISSUE NO.1(ONE).
It is admitted fact that the Complainant being a customer of the Opposite Party/Bank and had been sanctioned with a personal loan (flood loan) of Rs. 1,75,000/-(Rupees one lakh seventy five thousand)only on Dt.03/11/2013. The facts which are admitted need not be probe. As per the terms, conditions and clauses of the loan agreement entered on to between the Complainant and Opposite Party on Dt.03/11/2003 a pesonal loan (flood loan) of Rs.1,75,000/-(Rupees one lakh seventy five thousand) is sanctioned infavour of the Complainant and an EMI of Rs. 2,250/-(Rupees two thousand two hundred fifty)only is agreed between the Parties and the repayment of loan amount along with the interest was to be covered in Rs.20(one hundred twenty) installments scheduled to begin from December-2003. As per annexure-V i.e. The irrevocable letter of authority of the loan agreement, the deduction of loan installments i.e. EMI's was to be done from the salary of the Complainant and to be paid to the State Bank of India, Attabira Branch. The Complainant in between December-2003 to March-2005 has paid Rs. 17,950/-(Rupees seventeen thousand nine hundred fifty)only in the shape of cash that is too in a very irregular way and variable amounts. No transaction in respect of repayment of loan amount have been made through the State Bank account bearing No. 01190005981 of Attabira branch. The xerox copy of the Saving Bank Account No. 01190005981 of Attabira branch stand in the name of Complainant reveals that the account operated in between Dt.31/03/2003 to Dt.14/01/2005 and except the disbursement of flood loan amount of Rs.1,75,000/-(Rupees one lakh seventy five thousand)only, the Complainant has not deposited any amount at any point of time, hence there was no scope for Opposite Party/Bank to deduct the EMI's amount regularly. The Complainant after March-2005 till November-2008 has completely stopped repayment of monthly loan installments to the Opposite Party/Bank which is totally a contravention of terms and conditions of loan agreement.
The Complainant again started repayment of loan installments from Dt.06/12/2008 till date from his saving bank account bearing No.11042776095 of Bargarh branch to his loan account maintained at State Bank of India, Attabira an enhanced rate of Rs. 4,500/-(Rupees four thousand five hundred)only per month. The Complainant never complaint about irregular way of deduction of monthly loan installments by the Opposite Party/Bank and after more than a pretty loan gap of more than four years has come up with this Complainant on Dt.09/10/2012 for which the allegation of the Complainant that Opposite Party/Bank has been deducting monthly loan installments in an irregular way in order to earn more interest inspire no confidence for his dubious conduct. It is evident that there has been irregularity in repayment of loan installment for more than three years from April-2005 to November-2008 for which delayed interest have been imposed as per terms and condition of agreement. The Complainant has failed to substantiate with any such evidence as to cause of total non payment of loan installments for such a long period and his bonafideness is not proved at all. As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, it is unilateral obligation of the complaint to repay the loan installments as per the agreement and provisions of lanking law and he can not through allegation upon the Opposite Party/Bank for his own default payment of loan installments. The issue No.1(one) is answered as above.
IN ANSWER TO ISSUE NO.2(TWO).
The allegations against the Opposite Party No.2(two) that he misbehaved the Complainant, threatened to held up his pension and did not supplied the account statement to him is not proved by any sort of evidence. More over for the allegation like “misbehave”, this forum lacks jurisdiction to decide the matter. Complainant may agitate before proper court of law.
The Complainant from the initial period has made a causal approach in repayment of loan installment and later on totally stopped repayment of loan installments for a long gap. The allegation of Opposite Party/Bank that, the Complainant did not respond to the intimations send to him for repayment of loan installments is not proved by any cogent evidence. The Opposite Party/Back could have filed before the Forum the copies of the letters of intimations send to the Complainant for repayment of loan installments or any such documents relating to the matter and for his diligent effort. The Opposite Party/Bank ought to be partially held responsible for this act if the Complainant ought not have started regular repayment of loan installments again from Dt. 06/12/2008 and the Complainant him self has ratified the cause of the Opposite Party. In the Circumstance described above and from the facts and the evidence relating to the case the Opposite Parties can not be held responsible for irregular repayment of loan installments in order to earn more interest and in consequence can not held the deficiency of Opposite Party in providing service to the Complainant. The issue No.2(two) is answered as above.
IN ANSWER TO ISSUE NO.3(THREE).
To substantiate the allegations the Complainant neither brought before the Forum any cogent evidence nor from his conduct relating to repayment of loan installments and miserably failed to attract the decision of the Forum for deficiency is service of the Opposite Party as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
In the circumstance owing to the provisions of law, facts and evidence on record, pleadings of the Parties as of both oral and written, the forum comes to a conclusion and order as follows:-
O R D E R
The Complainant is dismissed with out any cost.
Case disposed of accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agr ree, I agree, (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash) (Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak) (Smt. Anjali Behera)
M e m b e r. P r e s i d e n t. M e m b e r.
