Orissa

Jajapur

CC/33/2017

Krupasindhu Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Odisha Gramya Bank,Danagadi Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Alok Kumar Pani.

18 Aug 2021

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:    1.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, I/C President,

                                                                          2.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                       

                                                      Dated the 18th day of August ,2021.

                                                      C.C.Case No.33 of 2017

Krupasindhu Pradhan   S/O Late Narayan ch.Pradhan   

At.  Jagannathpur, P.O. Rahasoi  ,

 Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                                           …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       

                   (Versus)

1.Branch Manager,Odisha Gramya Bank ,Danagadi Branch    

At/P.O. Danagadi ,Dt.Jajpur

2. Executive Engineer,NESCO Jajpur Electrical Division,At/P.O/Dt.Jajpur.

3. Executive Engineer,M.R.T,Division ,At/P.O. Dhabalgiri

     Jajpur Road, Dt. Jajpur.

                                                                                                               ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                          

  For the Complainant:                      Sri  A.K.Pani,  Advocate.

For the Opp.Party: No.1                  Sri G.C.Panda, Miss B.Rout,  Advocates.

For the Opp.Party : No.2  and 3       Self.                                                                                                 

                                                                                                    Date of order:  18.08.2021

MISS  SMITA  RAY, LADY MEMBER .                                                  

The petitioner has filed the present dispute against the O.Ps  mainly against O.P.no.1 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice since the O.P.no.1 has collected excess amount against the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- availed by the petitioner.

            The facts shortly as per complaint petition are that while working as Junior Engineer in MRT division ,Jajpur Road the petitioner availed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from O.P.no.1 on the strength of agreement. According to petitioner the loan so availed by the petitioner is required to repaid by the petitioner along with interest  though in  84 installments from the salary of the petitioner having  each month installments Rs.3600/- but the O.P.n.1 arbitrarily has deducted 99 installments amounting to Rs.3,56,400/- .As such the O>p.no.1 is required to refund Rs.54,000/- to wards excess collection from the salary of the petitioner. As the O.P.no.1 did not refund the excess amount  instead of several approach and advocate notice , the petitioner finding no other way has filed the present dispute for redressal his grievance by this commission with the prayer to direct the O.P.no.1 to refund the excess amount which has been collected by O.P.no.1 as well as award compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony.

            After appearance the O.P.no.1 has filed the written version denying the allegation of the petitioner. In the written version the O.P.no.1 has taken the stand that as against the application for a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the side of the petitioner,  the O.p.no.1 has disbursed Rs.2,00,000/- as loan to the petitioner in the month of July-2007 on the strength of agreement as well as  an undertaking from the employer (O.P.no.2 and 3 )  of the petitioner to deduct loan amount in each month from the salary of the petitioner having each monthly installment amounting to Rs 3600/- . The O.p.no.2 and 3 also has deducted 99  installments  from the salary of the petitioner from September-2007 .The installment period fixed on the existing rate of interest of 12.5% per annum with monthly rest in the schedule because by that time the said rate of interest was   prevaling . The rate of interest was not within the control of Bank or branch . The interest charge varies from time to time  as per Govt.of India finance Deptt and RBI guide line and for this there was a clause in the agreement that  in case of change of interest by RBI  the change rate of interest will be applicable on the loan A/C . Accordingly the rate of interest is charged in the loan A/C since 4.7.2008 at the rate of Rs.13.5%  instead of Rs12.5% .Similarly as the installments of loan was paid though outstation cheques by post or by messenger for collection when there arises charge and commission for collection of cheque the net amount of installment credited in the loan account of the petitioner deducting the charge of postage / commission . If the loan amount was paid in time then the A/C will be closed in time subject to condition of fixed interest rate and without collection charge. In the present case as the loan amount was paid though outstation cheque there was delay between receipt of cheque by the Bank from the employer and the actual amount credited in the loan A/C after collection  and due to such regular delay in collection of installment amount the interest in the loan amount increases. The increase of installment of loan installments and closing of loan A/C of the petitioner is due to the above reason. In view of the above narrated clarification the petitioner is not entitle for refund of excess collection amount as claimed by the petitioner nor the petitioner is not entitled for compensation for which the dispute is liable to be dismissed.

The O.P.no.2 and 3 also have filed the written version taking  the stand  that the petitioner though at present working as Jr.Manager ( Electrical) no.1 Binjharpur ,Electrical section Binjharpur under O.P.no.2 but the petitioner was previously working under MRT Division ,Jajpur Road . The petitioner  joined under O.P.no.2 on 19.11.2007 as per order of Chief Executive Officer NESCO Utility Balasore. After receipt of the last pay certificate of the petitioner from S.E,NESCO  Utility ,Jajpur Road it is observed that the petitioner has availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from Kalinga Gramya Bank,Danagadi for house building purpose to be repaid with interest in 84 installments @ Rs.3600/- as monthly installment and 2 installments has already been deducted by O.p.no.3 .In addition to it the O.p.no.2 has deducted 97 installments @ Rs.3600/- per month. The petitioner submitted the clearance certificate of the loan in January-2016 and by that time the O.p.no.1 has already collected 99 installments having each installments Rs.3600/- .The total amount of the 99 installments come to Rs.3,56,400/- .The petitioner is responsible for this by not bringing the facts to the notice of O.P.no.2 after deduction of 84 installments .The deduction list also has been sent to O.p.no.1 .Hence there is no fault or  deficiency in service on the part of O.P.no.2 and 3. The petitioner is required to take steps against O.P.no.1 to recover the excess amount as well as the dispute may be dismissed against O.P.no.2 and 3.

            Owing to the above assertion and counter assertion from the side of both the parties  we are inclined to decide the present dispute as per our observations below:-

Admittedly the petitioner has availed the loan of Rs2,00,000/- from O.p.no.1 .According to petitioner the O.p.no.1 has sanctioned and disbursed the above loan which will be repaid in 84 installments but the O.P.no.1 in the written version has stated  that as the installment of loan was paid through out station cheque by post or messenger for collection when there arises charge/ commission for collection the net amount was credited to the loan account of the petitioner deducting the charge of postage and commission . If the loan amount was paid in time then the loan A/C will be closed in time subject to condition of fixed interest rate and without collection charge. As against such stand from the side of O.p.no.1 , the O.p.no.2 has filed the list of deduction of installment  starting from 09.01.2008 to 05.10.2016 wherein the O.p.no.2 has stated that 97 installments @ Rs3600/- each month has been deducted and 2 installments @ 3600/- each has been  deducted by O.p.no.3 which comes to 99  installments amounting to Rs.3,56,400/- . In addition to it though the petitioner has claimed vide petition dt.03.08.2017 for production of loan ledger of the petitioner  so as to verify in which level the delay for crediting  the loan installments has been done but the O.p.no.1 vide his petition dt.24.11.2017 has stated that the loan ledger is not traceable similarly  as regards increase of rate of interest from 12.5% to 13.5% by O.P.no.1 we have come across with a observation of Hon’ble State Commission .Keral reported in 2000(1) CPR-180-Kerala ,where it is held that :

“ when the Bsank by an agreement agrees to charge a particular rate of interest on loan then bank can not unilaterally enhance the interest rate and consumer complaint about higher rate of interest charged would be maintainable .”

The Hon’ble commission vide para-1 has held that

“ if there was subsequent change of rate of interest either by Bank’s own decision or under the direction received from the RBI or any other higher authority the rate of interest would apply only to subsequent transaction and not to agreement already entered into by the parties”.

Hence in our view enhancing rate of interest from 12.5% to 13.5% in the loan account of the petitioner is arbitrary on the part of O.P.no.1 .The above observation from our side clearly go to establish that O.P.no.1 has committed gross deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice in dealing with the loan of the petitioner. Hence this order

O R D E R

            The dispute is allowed against O.p.no.1 and dismissed against O.p.no2 and 3. The O.p.no.1 is directed to refund Rs54000/- ( fifty four thousand ) along with Rs5,000/- as compensation  and cost of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner within 30 days after receipt of this order , failing which the petitioner is at liberty to take steps as per law for realization of the awarded amount. The cost has been awarded as per observation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2002(1) CLT-117-N.C-Maruti Udyog Ltd Vrs Bhawana Sabharwal and another .

                    This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 18th day of  August,2021. under my hand and seal of the Commission .