Sri M.C.DEVAKUMAR,

Member

1.  The Complainant has filed the complaint Under Section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite party bank alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to credit Rs. 65,000/- deducted extra towards EMI till 08.01.2019, and to deduct only the specified amount and to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the mental agony and to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

2. The complainant submits that, he borrowed personal loan of Rs. 3,40,000/-from opposite party Bank, interest at 10% per annum. The EMI for 60 months was Rs. 7,207/- as per loan sanction letter. The EMI deduction was normal for few months and later become very abrupt. On questioning the same with opposite party Bank Manager, an untenable reply was given. This was communicated to the main branch through registered post and emails, but no reply was made by opposite party. Hence the aggrieved filed the complaint seeking reliefs.

3. The opposite party filed its version through its representative and submits that, the complainant had availed personal overdraft facility to pensioner loan of Rs. 3,40,000/- on 29.10.2017 at the agreed rate of interest i.e., MCLR+1.5% floating rate of interest, repayable in monthly basis as applicable to over-draft to the extent of notional EMI according to drawing power is admitted. In order to avoid interest burdon for long time, the complainant himself orally requested to accept extra installment amount, so that he get the benefit of early foreclosure of the loan. Hence there is no abrupt deduction of installment amount.

4. Further submitted that, the OD facility requires pension amount to be credited to OD account, wherein the notional EMI adjusted and the left over amount will be allowed to draw by the pensioner. In the present case, the complainant not accepted to credit of pension to his OD account. So having no other go the opposite party. Bank has resorted to recover the loan amount from his SB account, to avoid the loan account slipping to non performing asset (NPA), with complainant’s consent only. The complainant was not maintaining the minimum balance amount in his SB account so as to debit the EMI amount towards loan account. As such, the self debit voucher of Rs. 6,500/- was with held to match for the loan installment. The complainant after foreclosing the loan account has now claimed relief for excess installment amount debited from his SB account to his loan account. As such, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.  Both parties filed their affidavit evidence with several documents. Both parties addressed oral arguments and also filed written arguments. Perusing the material on record, matter posted for orders.

6.      The points that would arise for our consideration are as
7. 1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service by the opposite party bank for debiting excess amount towards EMI and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs?
   2. What order? 

7.     Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

      Point No.1:- In the Negative

      Point No.2:- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.     Point No.1:- The complainant borrowed a loan of Rs. 3,40,000/- interest at 10% p.a on 29.07.2017 and had agreed to repay through EMI. The complainant alleged that, the opposite party bank had resorted to debit excess amount from his SB account towards EMI without his consent.  Thereby, he suffered inconvenience in meeting his financial needs. Hence the complaint.

9. The opposite party admitted the loan borrowed by the complainant and contend that, the complainant had availed personal over draft facility to pensioner and had agreed rate of interest i.e., MCLR+1.50%(Floating rate of interest) repayable in monthly basis as applicable to overdraft to the extent of notional EMI in accordance to drawing power. The OD facility was sanctioned as per Bank Master circular no.2017-18/17 dated 01.04.2017, accordingly the maximum repayment period is three years only(i.e., 36 months) for the age group of pensioner i.e., 65 years to 70 years. As such, the drawing power in OD will be reduced on monthly basis to the extent of notional EMI and the same should not exceed 50% of the monthly pension.

10. However, the opposite party contended that, there was some typographical error in the sanction letter dated 29.07.2017, in the column and same can be read as 1) Reg: Sanction of personal OD to pensioner and family pensioner and, 2) Repayment column: loan to be repaid in 36 months, notional EMI of Rs. 10,950/-(as per repayment schedule), accordingly during the OD account period a sum of Rs. 1,86,150/- (17x 10,950) could have been recovered, but the Bank has recovered Rs. 1,76,000/- only before closing the account Further the rate of interest agreed was floating rate of interest, as such, the rate of interest was changing  accordingly from time to time. Despite the suggestion to convert the OD account in to pension term loan, where the complainant can pay fixed amount of installment was not agreed. The complainant has not maintained the required amount in his SB account to transfer the amount towards EMI as soon as the pension is credited. As such, the OD account was overdue and about to become NPA. Hence, the bank has with held the self debit voucher of Rs. 6,500/-. So the bank has not failed to render service and no deficiency in service to the complainant, accordingly the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

11. On perusal of the evidence and the documents on board it is true that the complainant, a pensioner, had borrowed loan and agreed to repay in EMI through his SB account. Since the loan borrowed was personal overdraft to pensioner and family pensioner, the repayment period for the borrower   under the age group 65-70 year was three years only, as per the Master circular no.2017-18/17 dated 01.04.2017 issued by the opposite party Bank authority. Thereby the opposite party bank had resort to recover the borrowed amount with interest within three years accordingly, they have recovered excess amount from complainant’s SB account to avoid the loan account from becoming NPA. Further, the complainant was not maintaining the sufficient balance in his SB account to debit the amount towards the OD account. In view of the above observation, this Commission opined that the opposite party Bank have not committed any deficiency in service to the complainant and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence the point no.1 is answered in the negative.

12.     Point no.2:- In view of the above discussions, in point no.1 the complaint filed by Sri.Muralidhara D.N., deserves to be dismissed. Hence the following ;

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Forum on this the   07^th August, 2020)