Tamil Nadu

Vellore

CC/14/16

K. Sarangapani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank ( Rep by Manager) - Opp.Party(s)

N. Saravanan

13 Jul 2022

ORDER

                                                                                                Date of filing :  03.02.2014

                                                                                Date of order :  13.07.2022

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE, AT VELLORE DISTRICT

 

 PRESENT:  THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A.,B.L.      PRESIDENT

                              THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.SC, B.L.                    MEMBER- I

                               SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A.,    MEMBER -II

 

WEDNESDAY THE  13^TH DAY OF JULY  2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO: 16/2014

 

K. Sarangapani, Ex. Serviceman,

S/o. Late. Kanna Gounder,

Kalambooran Kottai Village,

Kammavanpettai Post,

Vellore Taluk and District - 632 319.                                                         ...Complainant

 

 

-Vs-

 

 

Canara Bank,

Rep. by its Manager,

Kammavanpettai Branch,

Kammavanpettai Village,

Vellore Taluk and District – 632 319.                                                    ...Opposite party

 

 

 

 

Counsel for complainant       :   Thiru.  N. Saravanan

 

Counsel for opposite party    :   Thiru. K. Ravichandran

 

 

 

 

 

                                                 ORDER

 

THIRU.A.MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complainant has prayed to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

1. The case of the complaint is briefly as follows:

The complainant is a customer of the opposite party’s bank is namely Canara  Bank, Kammavanpettai.  His saving bank account no is 1075101004193.  While on 22.03.2013 he went to the opposite party bank to pay a sum of Rs.16,200/- towards credit to his jewel loan.  But he was compelled to deposit in his saving bank account.  availing jewel loan the opposite party had deducted Rs.370/- as a commission.  Now he has understood that to maintain cash reserve during the annual audit, he has been forced to deposit in the saving bank account.  He further states that the opposite party did not maintain sufficient cash in their ATM even during the working hours of the bank which is situated near the bank, which gives hardship to the account holders and non-account holders.  Alternative measures are not taken to operate the ATM due to the power cuts especially after 6.00 p.m.

          Account holders are given stepmother treatment, when they approach the bank for pre-closure of their loan accounts.  And the charges payable to the assessors, incidental charges and other deductions are received by the bank in advance, even before sanctioning the jewel loan and proper receipts were not given to the amount received in exercise of sanctioning the jewel loan.  The complainant also has grievance of these charges why should not be deducted from the sanctioned jewel loan amount or on proper receipt to the customers.  Therefore, the allegations of the complainant’s that the incidental charges are excessively deducted by the bank.

          Certain persons seem to have closed the pension loan and obtained fresh pension loan immediately.  But the complainant was denied such facility.  He had also sent RTI application to the bank seeking certain information.  Earlier he had closed the pension loan on 12.10.2013 and had requested the manager to sanction fresh loan on the same day.  The manager informed him to approach on 22.10.2013, about the new pension loan.  Accordingly the complainant had visited the opposite party’s branch on 22.10.2013 at 3:30 p.m and met the branch manager and requested to sanction the pension loan.  But he was treated with disrespect and further threatened the complainant, that nobody can question his acts.  And further informed the complainant that at the most the higher official can only transfer him, even then he would be getting the same salary and allowances, but in some other branch.  The manager also scolded the complainant to get the loan through RTI Act if required. The behaviour of the manager is highly condemnable and is detrimental to the bank and customer’s relationship.  If the bank had closed the pension loan and sanctioned fresh pension loan immediately to 13 persons, as could be seen in the reply to the RTI application, then what is the impediment in sanctioning the same loan to the complainant. For the foregoing reasons the opposite party may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for this deficiency in service on their part.  Hence, this complaint.

2.  The written version of opposite party is as follows:

          The complainant is having a saving bank account with this opposite party bank and he has availed a gold jewel loan vide Account No. 19674.  But it is denied that he was compelled to deposit Rs.16,200/- in the saving bank instead of crediting the jewel loan.  The allegation made against the bank official is false and motivated.  This opposite party states that the ATM machine is functioning effectively and catering to the needs of the public and no complaint have been received from the public so far.  The gold jewel loan is sanctioned, as per the norms and guidelines of the bank issued from time to time to the public who are availing gold loans.  The appraiser charges are remitted to the bank through remittance challan, only by the parties who are availing the jewel loan.  Hence the issue of any receipt alleged by complainant does not arise.  It is denied that the bank official treated the complainant with disrespect and threatened the complainant and so on.  The complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  No such incident has occurred, as alleged by the complainant at any point of time.  The pension loan sanctioned during the period of 01.06.2013 to 26.10.2013 i.e for a period of 5 months and that too following the procedure and sanctioning the same and not instantly as alleged by the complainant.  The complainant himself admitted that he has availed a jewel loan of Rs.84,000/- from the opposite party states that sanctioning of loan is at the direction of the opposite party, considering the various aspect of sanctioning the particular type of loan as a matter of right in routine manner.  In fact, the complainant has not availed any service from the opposite party’s bank involving this complaint.  While it is so, the question of deficiency of service does not arise at all.  The opposite party states that the onerous is on the part of the complainant to show and prove that the charges are deducted excessively by the opposite party.  The allegation are made by the complainant, with ulterior motive.  The complainant is alleging that he approached the opposite party for sanctioning of pension loan, which was not sanctioned when no loan was sanctioned to the complainant, the question of deficiency of service on part of the opposite party does not arise.  There is no cause of mental agony on deduction of excessive charges for sanctioning loan as alleged by the complainant.  For the foregoing reason, the complaint may be dismissed with exemplary cost.

 

3.    Proof affidavit of complainant filed.Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party filed.  Documents not filed.  Written argument of complainant not filed.  Written argument of opposite party filed.

 

4. THE POINTS THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION ARE:    

           1.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?  

           2.  Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint?

           3.  To what relief, the complainant is entitled to?

 

5. Point Nos. 1&2:          The complainant is an ex-serviceman and he is a saving bank account holder with the opposite party.  He raised the following grievance against the opposite party.

1. The opposite party compelled to make a payment towards the jewel loan into his saving bank account.
2. While availing the jewel loan he has been forced to pay Rs.370/- to the appraiser charges but there was no receipt for the same.
3. The opposite party did not maintain sufficient cash reserve in their ATM, which is situated near the bank.
4. His pension loan was not sanctioned, accepting in mind, his RTI application.
5. He has not been treated with due respect.

 

To prove the allegation he has examined himself as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to A7.  On the other hand the opposite party vehemently denied the allegations of the complainant.  The  opposite party claim that they never compelled to deposit in the  complainant’s saving bank account.  Further the opposite party states that the ATM machine is functioning effectively. The appraiser charges are remitted to the bank, through remittance challan only by the respective customer who is availing the jewel loan.  Further the sanctioning of pension loan is the sole discretion of the bank and the complainant has no right to question the same.  In this regard we find that there are 13 people who have availed the pension loan.  Except the complainant all other person the loan was sanctioned.  The reason stated by the bank is that, sanctioning of the loan is at the sole discretion of the opposite party. In the present case, admittedly the complainant‘s loan was not sanctioned for the reason best known to the bank.  It is true that it is the sole discretion of the credits / bank, but the discretion should be exercised in a fair manner.  In the present case, all the other applicants are ex-serviceman.  The complainant is also an ex–serviceman.  Similarly situated people are to be treated equally.  We did not find any material to reject the complainant’s pension loan by the opposite party.  We find that in so far as sanctioning of loan alone, there is a deficiency in service on part of the bank.  Hence these Point Nos. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the complainant.

 

6. Point No: 3         As we have decided that the point Nos.1 and 2 that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant.  This point No.3 is also answered accordingly.

 

 

7.       In the result, this complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9percent per annum from the date of this order to till the date of realization. 

            Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 13^th July, 2022.

     Sd/-                                          Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

MEMBER – I                                 MEMBER – II                                          PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1-22.11.1995   -  Copy of Bank Pass book

Ex.A2-22.03.2013   -  Copy of Counterfoil

Ex.A3-26.10.2013   -  Copy of RTI Application

Ex.A4-24.10.2013   -  Copy of Legal Notice

Ex.A5-09.12.2013   -  Copy of RTI appeal

Ex.A6-09.12.2013   -  Copy of Complaint to ombudsman

Ex.A7-19.07.2013   -  Copy of Gold loan card reply to RTI application

 

LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:                           -NIL-

     Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                               Sd/-

MEMBER – I                               MEMBER – II                                    PRESIDENT