BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
C.C NO-67/2013
Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Smita Tripathy, Member (W).
Bijay Kumar Mahapatra,aged about 80 years,
S/O- Late Ananta Mohan Mahapatra.
R/O-Kira Sason, Kuturachuan,
P.O/P.S-Kuchinda,District-Sambalpur,
PIN-768222,Odisha. …..Complainant
Vrs.
- Chairman, State Bank of India,
State Bank Bhawan, 4th Floor,
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.
- Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Dist- Sambalpur,Odisha.
- Chief General Manager,
Reserve Bank of India (Proforma),
Department of Banking Service Supervision,
Centre-1, World Trade Centre,
Cuffee Parate, Mumbai-400005. ….O.Ps
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant:- Sri P.P.Panigrahi,Advocate & Associates.
- For the O.P-1 :- None
- For the O.P-2 :- Sri P.K. Kar, Advocate & Associates.
- For the O.P-3 :- None.
DATE OF HEARING : 03.03.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 13.04.2021
SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:-Brief facts of the case is that the this case is filed by the complainant against the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice committed by the O.P. On dtd. 27.07.2016 the case was heard from both the Complainant and O.P but due to some reason the order was not pronounced. Considering this is an year old case and in compliance with the Section-38(7) of Consumer Protection Acc,2019, the case is heard from the party present and order is passed on merit accordingly.
The Complainant is a retired Govt. servant (Peon)who for his survival depend on the pension provided by the Govt. He along with his wife Mandakini Mahapatra has a joint account vide no- 11500982485 where the pension amount is deposited every month. The Complainant was provided with a Pension loan of Rs.40,000/- during May-2009 with a monthly repayment of Rs.800/-. To be recovered from debiting the pension account directly. The agreement paper containing terms and conditions of the loan were not provided by the O.P. Till June-2011, the Bank was debiting Rs.800/- every month. But suddenly the Branch Manager arbitrarily and forcibly transferred Rs.5,000/- to the loan account and thereafter till December 2011 he debited Rs.800/- per month. On dtd. 01.07.2011 the Branch Manager sent a letter alleging that the complainant is not paying the instalment regularly and again debited Rs. 1,500/- arbitrarily and continued to deduct the same amount (Rs.1,500/-) every month . On dtd.01.10.2012 the O.P debited an amount of Rs.5,500/- from the account of the Complainant arbitrarily. On protest by the Complainant the O.P abused him with filthy language like-TU, BE, JUNGLEE, PASU, JAANWAR etc. The Complainant on getting information, reached at the Branch of the O.P met with the Branch Manager,touched his feet and narrated his problem for his ailing wife, as he was going through severe financial crisis having no money for treatment due to deduction of money. But the Branch Manager on realisation of his mistake restored the unauthorisedly transferred amount on dtd. 10.10.2012. A written protest to this fact was made on dtd.16.10.2012 to G.M SBI Bhubaneswar and Banking authorities at Sambalpur. AT that time the Complainant was undergone Brain Surgery still the O.P-2 was continuing giving mental pressure and harassment. The O.P-2 hold the account of the Complainant with no reason at a balance of Rs.2,900/-.Hence the complainant sought relief from this commission to get rid of the torture of the O.Ps as prayed.
As per the O.P-2 the Complainant has availed a pension loan with an interest rate of 12.75% per annum. The EMI was fixed at Rs.800/- for 48 months. With a condition of basic rate changing time to time which the Complainant will be liable to liquidate residual amount on the outstanding dues. The loan was disbursed without execution of any agreement between the Complainant and the O.P-2 The actual amount of the loan was fixed at Rs.1,148/- but the complainant requested fixed it at Rs.800/- hence the interest on differential amount of EMI and non payment of EMI raised to a high amount and the interest has also changed from time to time. To regularise the account, the O.P-2 deducted Rs.5,000/- from the account of the complainant a the irregular amount was Rs.10,724/- and the EMI was raised from Rs.800/- to Rs.1500/-. An authorisation was given by the Complainant to the O.P-2 to deduct the amount in case of default. Again the O.P-2 has filed a petition with a prayer to strike out some paragraph of the petitioner’s pleading which false, baseless and are indicated towards the character assassination of the O.P-2 and the petition was allowed by this Commission on dtd. 04.03.2015. Hence the O.P-2 has not committed any deficiency in services.
The O.P-1 & 3, despite of service of notice he did not bother to appear before this Commission thus challenging the allegations made by the Complainant. So taking it in to consideration as “IT IS A YEAR OLD CASE”, this Commission has rightly decided to dispose the case as well setting the O.P-1 &3 as ex-parte in this case. Hence hearing conducted exparte under Rule-6 of Order-9 of Civil Procedure Code.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-
- Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
- Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?
From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has availed service from the
O.P with opening a saving bank account in the bank of O.P. As per the Interest Chart for EMIs for loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/-it is observed that the EMI was fixed at Rs.1,148/- but on the request of the Complainant it was fixed at Rs.800/- for some limited period by the oral request of the complainant. So the differential amount of EMI were accumulated as outstanding for which the bank deducted Rs.5,000/- from the account. But for the reason for which the O.P debited an amount of Rs.5,500/- on dtd. 01.10.2012 from the account of the complainant is not known and reverse the same on dtd. 10.10.2012, which amounts to unfair trade practice. But the bank has rightly rejected the application containing the allegation of ‘holding the account’ on the ground that the signature put on the letter was verified with the loan account and it did not match. Considering the change of bank rate of interest, the O.P has not informed the Complainant and though the same was claimed to be notified at Bank’s premises and circulated in other printed media/electronic media, the O.P has not preferred to file a copy of the notification with this Commission. On protest by the Complainant to the O.P regarding the unusual deduction from his account, the O.P abused him with filthy language like-“TU, BE, JUNGLEE, PASU, JAANWAR etc”. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in the case of B.L. Sood vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 28 November, 2007 has taken a view that in a civilized society, rough behaviour with a senior citizen or with any person by the employee of service provider cannot be permitted. They are expected to behave in a civilized manner and with respect. The authority empowered to function under a statute while exercising power discharges public duty; it has to act to observe general welfare in common good; in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system; where it is found that exercise of discretion was mala fide and the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental and physical harassment and that the officer can no more claim to be under any protective cover. It is the principle that 'the servants of the government are also the servants of the people and the use of their power must always be subordinate to their duty of service'. A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it and he who is responsible for it must suffer it. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil. The O.P-1 & 3 in this case has no role to play and they are considered to be wrongly impleaded as party so the O.P-1 & 3 are set free from any liability. Hence we order as under :-
ORDER
That the Complaint petition is allowed. The O.P-2 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) by way of compensation to the Complainant for causing him mental, physical and financial loss and agony and Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) as litigation costs. This amount shall be paid by the OP to the Complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the OP shall pay interest @ 5% per annum on this amount from the date of filing the complaint, i.e., 09.10.2013 till its realisation."
Order pronounced in the open Court today i.e, on 13th day of April 2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.
Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.
I agree,
-Sd/- -Sd/-
MEMBER(W) PRESIDENT
Dictated and Corrected
by me.
-Sd/-
PRESIDENT
