DATE OF FILING: 08.07.2015
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 23.12.2017
Dr. N.Tuna Sahu, Presiding Member:
The complainant has filed this consumer dispute under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in bank service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is an account holder of the Bank, O.P.No.1 of Beguniapada as well as availed one KCC Loan vide No. 5010/2010 and the amount of loan was Rs.40,000/-. The complainant was a regular payee in the installments to the said loan as well as, the complainant was never been a defaulter. In the month of July 2014, the complainant was in need of money thus he requested to the O.P.No.1 to grant further loan amount. The O.P.No.1 with satisfaction to the regular payment of the previous loan by the complainant agreed to sanction another loan with an assurance that, as the complainant was never been a defaulter in payment of loan, the present loan is sectioned. At that time, the complainant had to pay an amount of Rs.40,967/- towards the standing amount of previous loan No. 5010/2010, thus the O.P.No.1 suggested the complainant to deposit Rs. 40,967/- to avail new KCC loan. Accordingly on 8.7.2014 the complainant paid an amount of Rs.40,967/- towards the clearance of the KCC loan year 2010. Accordingly the amount was paid by the complainant and the O.P.No.1 sanctioned another loan renewing the same loan on 08.07.2014. In the meantime, the daughter of the complainant who is performing her studies at Viswas College of Nursing, Khurda and to meet her study fees, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 24.09.2014 in his account with the O.P.No.1 to transfer the amount to his daughter’s account through NEFT. All of sudden the O.P.No.1 has detained the amount of Rs.10,000/- without transferring the same to the daughter of the complainant. When the daughter of the complainant did not get the amount send by her father the complainant, the complainant enquired about the non transfer of money and about the detention of the amount to the O.P.No.1 surprisingly the O.P.No.1 answered to the complainant that the KCC loan of complainant of year 2010 is still unclear, hence the amount deposited for NEFT is detained and adjusted towards he KCC loan account. The complainant is in shock as the same was without knowledge of the complainant, though the complainant has already been cleared the account of loan on 08.07.2014 and against the said clearance, new loan is also sanctioned by the O.P.No.1. Similarly the O.P.No.1 again debited another amount of Rs.9000/- of the complainant towards the loan from the savings account. On 26.09.2014 when the complainant rushed to the O.P.No.1 with his grievance and asked for the entire loan statement, the O.P.No.1 in some and other pretext avoided providing the loan statement. When the matter stood thus the complainant presented a written application seeking about the statement, then also not received the application of the complainant. Hence the complainant on 26.09.2014 sends a letter by post to provide the loan statement to the O.P.No.1. But surprisingly, the O.P.No.1 after fifteen days of the said application of complainant issued a letter with loan statement with a notice that the KCC loan account of the complainant was not paid, though the complainant had been cleared the KCC loan 2010 and again, the O.P.No.1 sanctioned another loan after clearance of the previous loan. The O.P.No.1 intentionally avoided the complainant to provide the loan statements though the complainant is legally entitled to obtain the statement of his account of the loan, further the deduction of the amount by the O.P.No.1 without informing the complainant shows the negligent and deliberate negligence act as well as humiliating and unfair towards a consumer coming under the purview of the act as deficiency of service. The O.P.No.1 never issued any notice to the complainant regarding the NPA rather the complainant has cleared the loan on 08.07.2014 and as per the suggestion of the O.P.No.1 and after payment another loan was also sanctioned. Such acts of the O.P.No.1 show the ill attitude and negligent act. Further it shows that, the O.P.No.1 after receiving the notice of the complainant, did not react and on 13.10.2014 issued the notice but mentioned that the complainant have issued with the notice on 1.10.2014. Such careless and negligent act of the O.P.No.1 put the complainant in frustration as well as when the O.P.No.1 without prior notice of complainant detained the amount of Rs.10,000/- which the complainant supposed to have been send for the studies of her daughter, but due to the detention by the O.P.No.1 , the daughter of the complainant suffered with lot of financial hardship as well as threatening to her future studies for which the O.P.No.1 is liable to compensate the complainant and liable to be responsible for the further treat to the future studies of the daughter of the complainant. For such act of the O.Ps the complainant suffered loss of Rs.19,000/- which was detained by the O.Ps, towards the installment of loan though the loan is cleared by the complainant, and such unfair detention of the amount by the O.Ps made the daughter of the complainant suffering without payment of her college fees. Such act frustrated and harassed the complainant mentally as well as financially, and when the complainant after repeated approaches for the release of the amount to the O.Ps failed, then only compelled to approach this Hon’ble forum seeking justice. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, the complainant has prayed to direct the O.Ps to credit the debited amount ofRs.19,000/- in the account of the complainant with the o.P.No.1 alongwith penal interest from the date of debit towards loan, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice the O.Ps filed version through his advocate. It is stated that the allegations made in the complaint petition are not all true and correct and the complainant is put to strict proof of such of those allegations which are not specifically admitted herein. On being requested by the complainant as borrower, the O.P.No.1 has sanctioned a loan of Rs.40,000/- only on 16.06.2010 and after execution of necessary documents disbursed the loan amount to the account of the complainant. As per the terms and conditions, of the sanctioned letter, the complainant has to repay the loan amount with an interest of 07.00% compoundable half yearly, and to repay the entire amount outstanding in the loan account along with the accrued interest in single lump sum installment after harvesting of the crop. The sanctioned letter dated 16.06.2010 containing all terms and conditions was duly acknowledge by the borrower. The other loan documents such as demand promissory note, arrangement letter and agreement of hypothecation for agriculture loans etc. executed on 16.06.2010 by the complainant are filed with list of documents and the contents made therein may also be reads as part of this written version. After execution of necessary loan documents as stated supra, the sanctioned amount of Rs.40,000/- was credited to the account of borrower on 16.06.2010 and the borrower withdrew the amount. Thereafter, unfortunately the complainant failed to operate the account properly and repay the loan amount in time, as per the terms of the sanctioned letter. The O.P. sent several reminders and also approached the borrower to repay the amount and to regularize the same, but in vain. As per the RBI guidelines the account was classified as NPA and the usual interest charged on the account was reversed on 31.03.2014. After some time the complainant approached this O.P. with a request to renew the KCC limit and agreed to repay the loan amounts outstanding in the earlier KCC loan account. Thus, on 08.07.2014 the complainant repaid Rs.40,967/- and regularize the earlier loan account. Thereafter the complainant executed necessary documents for renewal of the KCC loan account and this O.P. sanctioned a fresh limit of Rs.40,000/- in course of usual business practice and as per the law this O.P. subsequently debited Rs. 18,079/- towards undebited accrued interest from the account of the complainant. The complainant has failed to repay the loan amount from the date of inception and when the account was regularized all the accrued interest from the date of sanctioned loan i.e. 16.06.2010 to 24.07.2015 was calculated and debited from the account as per the terms of the loan documents and banking regulations. The averments made in para-3 are not all true and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The allegation regarding the study of daughter in Viswas Colleges of Nursing Khurda and intention to send the amount to her by the complainant are not within the knowledge of this O.P. and they have relevance with this matter. On being requested by the complainant this O.P. renewed the KCC loan facility and allowed the complainant to operate the same. As per the RBI guidelines and standard banking practice, this O.P. deducted the un-debited interest against the loan amount by exercising its right to set-off. All the transactions have been done by this O.P. as per the standard banking procedure and direction of RBI guidelines. The complainant was very much aware of the terms and conditions of the KCC loan, its mode of repayment, the amount repaid by him and the amount outstanding in the loan account. The O.P. being a public sector bank has recovered its legal dues only which was very much with the knowledge of this complainant. The rest of the averments made in the Para-5,6,7,8 and 9 are not at all true, correct and the same are denied in toto by this O.P.No.1 and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. Moreover some other averments made in that Paras are irrelevant to this case and needs no comments. The loan was sanctioned to the complainant as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the sanctioned letter as well as in the prescribed loan documents, which were duly acknowledge and executed by the borrower. Hence as per the terms of those documents, as well as the banking laws, the complainant is liable to refund the loan amount the accrued interest to the bank. The relationship between them and the complainant is that of a banker and borrower and is governed by the law of contract under which this O.P. had given the loan to the complainant. This case involves complex question of facts, evidence and law. It involves the interpretation of the contract and other complex questions relating to the rights and liabilities of the banker and borrower. Hence, this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to admit the case and try the same and the matter can be properly adjudicated in the Civil Court. Due to the above facts, this complaint does not come within the scope and ambit of the consumer Forum and there is no deficiency in service provided by the O.Ps. Hence the O.Ps prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost in the interest of justice.
4. On the date of final hearing of the consumer dispute the learned counsel for the complainant is on call absent and the learned counsel for the O.Ps is present. In fact the complainant has remained absent consecutively from 16.02.2017 to 9.11.2017 and even after repeated directions issued by this Forum he did not prefer to file the written argument. On 25.07.2017 the complainant was directed to remain present without fail for hearing of the matter but even after further three adjournments allowed the complainant failed to file the written argument in support of his case and did not remain present hence the Forum decided to dispose of the matter on merit after hearing from the learned counsel for the O.Ps.
5. On merit and as per the complain petition, it is an admitted fact that the present complainant had availed a crop loan of Rs.40,000/- from the O.P.No.1 on 16.6.2010 after execution of necessary documents. The crop loan was sanctioned as per the terms and conditions of the sanction letter dated 16.06.2010 and the complainant was to make repayment of the loan amount with interest @7% compoundable half yearly. On verification of loan documents, we find that the complainant had executed demand promissory note, arrangement letter and agreement of hypothecation for agriculture loan on 16.06.2010 and received a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the O.P.No.1. As per the submissions of learned counsel for the O.Ps, the complainant failed to repay the loan amount in time as per the terms and conditions of sanction letter and even after several approaches made through reminders, he did not repay the loan amount. Hence, as per the guide lines of RBI, the account of the complainant was classified as Non Performing Asset (NPA) and usual interest charged on the account was reversed on 31.3.2014. It is also submitted that after some time the loanee/complainant approached to O.P.No.1 for renewal of the KCC limit and agreed to repay the outstanding loan amount of earlier KCC loan account. Accordingly, the loanee/ complainant on 08.07.2014 made payment of Rs.40,967/- towards outstanding loan dues for regularization of the earlier loan account. Thereafter, on execution of necessary documents with O.P.No.1, the complainant received a fresh KCC loan amount of Rs.40,000/- sanctioned by O.P.No.1. However, the present dispute arose on 24.9.2014 when the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- in his loan account to remit the money to his daughter studying at Khurda through NEFT as the O.P.No.1 instead of remitting the same had adjusted the same towards unchanged interest of earlier loan. It is also alleged by the complainant that the O.P.No.1 again debited another amount of Rs.9,000/- from the savings bank account of the complainant towards the said loan. For this unlawful act of the O.P.No.1, the complainant had also lodged a complaint on 26.9.2014 but the O.P.No.1 did not car to redress his grievance. As a result the complainant has filed this consumer dispute with the prayer to direct the O.Ps to credit the debited amount of Rs.19000/- and to pay compensation and cost as prayed in the complaint.
6. In the foregoing fact and circumstances of the case, the issues that have come up for our consideration and adjudication as to:-
(i) Whether the O.Ps are liable to credit the debited amount of Rs.19,000/- to the account of the complainant?
(ii) And whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the O.Ps and for that whether O.Ps are liable to pay any compensation or cost to the complainant?
7. To address and adjudicate the first issue in dispute as framed above, we would like to view that as per the materials placed on the case record, the present complainant is a loanee/borrower under O.P.No.1 i.e. Indian Overseas Bank, Beguniapada, Ganjam. The complainant availed a crop loan of Rs.40,000/- on 16.06.2010 sanctioned by O.P.No.1 and was promised to make repayment of the said loan as per terms and conditions of sanction letter and loan agreement. It is an admitted fact which is beyond doubt or dispute that the complainant received the said loan amount of Rs.40,000/- to make payment with interest 7% compoundable half yearly and agreed to repay the entire amount along with accrued interest in single lump sum installment after harvesting of the crop. However, as per the materials available and corroboration of contentions of learned counsel of O.Ps, the complainant did not make repayment of the loan amount up to 08.07.2014 though sanctioned during June 2010. In the meantime, the complainant once again requested the O.P.No.1 for a fresh loan who requested the complainant/loanee to close the earlier loan account on repayment of outstanding amount of Rs.40,967/- and to regularize the loan account. Accordingly, the loanee/complainant deposited an amount of Rs.40,967/- in his loan account on 08.07.2014 and the O.P.No.1 also made renewal of the loan of the present complainant. On perusal of material documents filed by the complainant, it reveals that the complainant though availed the loan on 16.6.2010 but did not pay the loan dues up to 08.07.2014 which proves the fact that the complainant is a chronic defaulter of loan. On further perusal of materials, we find that the O.P.No.1 on 6.3.2014 issued a notice to the complainant to make repayment of outstanding dues as on 14.10.2012. Similarly, the O.P.No.1 again on 01.10.2014 issued a letter with reference to the complaint dated 26.10.2014 of complainant and in the said letter it was informed the complainant that his account had an uncharged interest of Rs.18,079/- which needs immediate recovery. It was also informed the complainant that due to non-payment of loan dues, his account was classified as NPA earlier and was regularized on 08.07.2014 on payment of Rs.40,967/-. Similarly, on perusal of the documents of O.Ps, it reveals that the complainant had availed a crop loan amount of Rs.40,000/- from O.P.No.1 on 16.06.2010 as per the terms and conditions of the sanction letter dated 16.6.2010 and it was agreed to repay the loan amount with interest @ 7% compoundable half yearly. The complainant/loanee though received the loan amount but did not make repayment of the same as a result it was classified as NPA. However, the complainant on 8.7.2014 on repayment of Rs.40,967/- regularized the loan account to avail a fresh loan from the O.P.No.1. On further careful perusal of statement of loan account filed by the O.P.No.1, we find that the loanee/complainant is a loan defaulter who availed the loan amount but did not repay the amount as promised as per the terms and conditions of sanction letter. We also find that the aforesaid loan account was made renewal by the O.P.No.1 on submission of renewal application by the complainant on 8.7.2014. On verification of payment receipts submitted by complainant, it reveals that he complainant had deposited the outstanding loan dues of Rs.40,967/- in his KCC loan account bearing No.5010/2010 towards outstanding loan dues. On verification of statement of account of the KCC loan for the period 16.6.2010 to 1.9.2014, it shows that on 08.07.2014, the complainant had paid Rs.40,967/- in the said loan account and it was renewed by the O.P.No.1. It also revealed that as on 24.07.2014, the complainant was to repay Rs.18,079/- towards uncharged interest to the O.P.No.1. While the status of loan account of the complainant was as stated above, the O.P.No.1 debited an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the Savings Bank account of the complainant when he deposited the same to transfer the amount to his daughter through NEFT as there was outstanding interest dues against the complainant to make repayment. Similarly, the O.P.No.1 again debited another amount of Rs.9,000/- from the savings bank account of the complainant towards the said loan for non-payment of outstanding interest dues. In the aforesaid fact and circumstances and on careful perusal of statement of loan account we would like to view that the statement of bank is prima facie documentary evidence which proves beyond doubt that the complainant had to repay the outstanding dues of 18,079/- towards uncharged interest in his earlier account which was not closed ever after repayment of loan dues of Rs.40,967/- which was paid by the complainant on 08.07.2014 to avail a fresh loan. Therefore, the O.Ps are not liable to credit the debited amount of Rs.19,000/- to the account of the complainant since there was interest due of Rs.18,079/- against his earlier loan account bearing No.5010/2010 which was not closed even after repayment of outstanding loan dues of Rs.40,967/- for avail of a new loan. In this context, it is relevant to mention that the O.P.No.1 had renewed the loan account of the present complainant on receipt of the aforesaid outstanding dues from the loanee complaint. Since, the account was not closed by the O.P. No.1 due to non-payment of interest dues by the complainant, there is no deficiency on part of the O.Ps for debiting the amount of Rs.19,000/- from his savings bank account. Thus, we feel that the O.P.No.1 is not liable to credit the said amount to the savings bank account of the present complainant as the bank has every right to recover unpaid dues from the loanee.
8. With regard to the second issue as put above, we would like to state that as discussed above, where there is no proved case of deficiency in service on part of the O.Ps, the question of award of compensation and cost does not arise. In this case, as per the foregoing discussions, the O.P.No.1 debited an amount of Rs.19,000/- from the account of the complaint towards unpaid outstanding interest dues against the said loan account which is not illegal and arbitrary hence there is no deficiency in service and the O.Ps are not liable to pay any cost or compensation. In a sequel to the above discussions and considering the fact and circumstances of the present dispute, in our considered view we would like to say that the complaint of the complainant devoid of any merit hence the case is ordered to be dismissed.
9. In the result, the compliant of the complainant is dismissed against all O.Ps due to devoid of any merit. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly. However, there are no orders as to cost and compensation.
10. The order is pronounced on this day of 23rd December 2017 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of this order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
